Originally posted by seanflynn: I understand that Michael Jackson was black.
But for the life of me I don't see how he was "important to black history."
Why don't you go to the Apollo Theatre right now and ask that question? We'll see how long you last.
Ray Charles and James Brown are legends, and neither of them has received such an outpouring as Michael Jackson is receiving now. From an objective standpoint, it demonstrates he was very much important to black history.
quote:
He carried on a tradition of black soul music (more successfully done at Motown than anywhere else, and pioneered years before the Jackson Five came along)
Um... Michael Jackson was at Motown for many years, something you clearly weren't aware of, it would seem from that sentence.
quote:
of appealing to a vast white audience as well as black, and with distancing a bit from black roots (contrasted say with Aretha Franklin or Ray Charles or in earlier years Billie Holliday for example).
This is the same colonialist argument I heard during "Slumdog Millionaire". "How can that music be called true Indian music? I don't hear any sitars!" What, is music supposed to stand still at a certain point in history, and only sound like what it did a generation or two ago? That's an interesting argument for anti-progress. Did he really distance himself from his black roots, musically speaking? Maybe his style became so ubiquitous that it drew in so many white artists, and so it's difficult to hear the black influence when it's so subsumed in musical culture.
And what you're ignoring when you say "vast white audience" is that it was a vast world-wide audience, beyond the likes of what any black musician had ever seen. Which brings us back to Motown. The whole point of Motown was to record and market black recording artists, and - this is very important - to transcend the black market and cross over into the general public. And they did a very good job. But Michael Jackson was the epitome of Motown's ultimate role. He crossed over to the entire world, more so than even Stevie Wonder and Diana Ross was able to. If he's not historic, then no black musician is.
quote:
He was terrifically talented, provided a lot of entertainment. But an important figure in black history? He was an important figure in entertainment history who happened to be black.
You just made Mr. Talented's point. Assuming your premise is correct - that he's an entertainment figure who happened to be black - than that's the biggest milestone one could make. It means he successfully crossed over more so than anyone else. It's like President Obama being elected because many white people saw him not a black president, but as a president who happened to be black. And what a moment in black history such a thing is.
seanflynn, I think you are kind of contradicting your past posts that certain posters, i.e. Pucifer, are disrespectful of the African-American identity (and the black identity in general), by suggesting that it doesn't make a difference that a white actor play a black person.
"Notorious was nice, but it’s not in the color purple range" "Angels and Demons may get nominated for cinematography the imagery was profound" "District Nine will definitely win for best foreign film it made money and everyone loved it" ~ 8movies
Posts: 2714 | Location: nz | Registered: January 12, 2009
These posts are getting far too long for me to even care. It's summer, people! Go out and do something for the first time in your lives! I'm going on a cruise tonight, so, yay me!
Posts: 5462 | Location: Kirkland, WA | Registered: March 13, 2006
I think seanflynn's denial is apparent here. (And his lack of knowledge of the topic, because by mentioning Motown and neglecting to include that Michael Jackson is a major part of the Motown legacy, there's obvious research that needs to be done about Michael Jackson on his end.)
Even before he died, everyone already knew how important Michael Jackson was and how groundbreaking his achievements were, especially as an African-American during the heights of his popularity.
To say that you don't think it "makes a difference" whether or not Johnny Depp plays Michael Jackson completely ignores the main reason WHY he's as important as he is to black history, music history, American history, and world history in general.
To cast a non-black actor in his place would taint that.
quote:
Originally posted by seanflynn: I am not dismissive of Jackson's MTV breakthrough.
Actually, you are. This is what you said:
quote:
Oh please, Michael Jackson getting played on MTV is in the same league with even Jackie Robinson, or Oprah's massive impact?
You went on to say this:
quote:
But if ALL you can point to is getting on MTV
I capitalized the word "all" and typed it in bold print.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: MrTalented,
Originally posted by LKMOSCAR: These posts are getting far too long for me to even care. It's summer, people! Go out and do something for the first time in your lives! I'm going on a cruise tonight, so, yay me!
It's winter here
"Notorious was nice, but it’s not in the color purple range" "Angels and Demons may get nominated for cinematography the imagery was profound" "District Nine will definitely win for best foreign film it made money and everyone loved it" ~ 8movies
Posts: 2714 | Location: nz | Registered: January 12, 2009
Originally posted by bildo10: Didn't Angelina Jolie play a real-life African American woman in "A Might Heart" a few years ago?
Jesus. This is an example of how political correctness in this country has dumbed down nearly everyone. Mariane Pearl is of Dutch, French and Cuban decent. Although cafe au lait in complexion and having some black roots in her Cuban ancestry, she was far from an "african american" as she's not a friggin american!!! I hate that damn term because it makes generalizing idiots out of everyone who adopts it!!!
In any event, the people who were in such an uproar over Angelina playing that role, which she did convincingly, will be the same morons who will cry a bloody river if anyone other than a Black Man doesn't play Jackson in the last 20 years of his life, in the yet to be realized theatrical biography.
Technically, MTV did play black artists before Michael Jackson. I do give him a lot of credit for what he did with the video form including helping MTV realize that there were other artists out there besides those in a rock genre since that was MTV's reason as to why they didn't play many artists of color. Michael Jackson was not the first black artist though to appear on MTV. Donna Summer, Tina Turner, Eddie Grant, etc., were all in the rotation before Michael Jackson, and J.J. Jackson of course was one of the first of the five original VJs.
Also, while other artists had crossed the color barrier like Ray Charles, the Jackson Five specifically Michael were the first to be marketed to white suburbia with their merchandising and television show. Suddenly it became okay for young white girls to crush on someone like Michael Jackson whereas even with a young Stevie Wonder, it still would have been inappropriate for a white girl to admit to having a crush on him.
I think that's what sets him apart from other artists or singers that did crossover. He was one of the few icons up there with Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Elvis Presley, and the Beatles while someone like Aretha Franklin would not be no matter how talented and legendary she is in her own right. Salon talks about this Death of Monoculture as well as Slate in connection with his death, and how celebrities just don't reach that kind of status because there are so many niches out there now.
With all that said though, I don't think it would be inappropriate to have a non African- American portray Jackson post-Bad because that's when the skin lightening got out of control, imo. He still looked normal during the Bad album era, but the plastic surgery and skin lightening was becoming very obvious. Not to say an African-American couldn't play Jackson after that time period too, but I think GoBlue makes a very good point that Jackson would probably like it if a white person did play him because he spent so much time trying to hide his black features because of how badly his father messed him up.
ETA: I actually think by having a white person play him it would make more of a statement on how messed up he was psychologically to go from a young, handsome black man to what he looked like later on, and help to touch on race in America sort of an expansion on what Three Kings briefly touched upon when one of the character's asks another, "what's the problem with Michael Jackson?".
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mrs. Daryl Zero,
Originally posted by bildo10: Didn't Angelina Jolie play a real-life African American woman in "A Might Heart" a few years ago?
Jesus. This is an example of how political correctness in this country has dumbed down nearly everyone. Mariane Pearl is of Dutch, French and Cuban decent. Although cafe au lait in complexion and having some black roots in her Cuban ancestry, she was far from an "african american" as she's not a friggin american!!! I hate that damn term because it makes generalizing idiots out of everyone who adopts it!!!
In any event, the people who were in such an uproar over Angelina playing that role, which she did convincingly, will be the same morons who will cry a bloody river if anyone other than a Black Man doesn't play Jackson in the last 20 years of his life, in the yet to be realized theatrical biography.
Cripe!
Except it won't be the same 'morons'. It would be many, many, many more people. And since the great majority of the will be black, how will that appear by calling them morons?
think seanflynn's denial is apparent here. (And his lack of knowledge of the topic, because by mentioning Motown and neglecting to include that Michael Jackson is a major part of the Motown legacy, there's obvious research that needs to be done about Michael Jackson on his end.)
Please read my posts more carefully. I said Motown had been around and successful with the same formula of appealing to white teenagers years before the Jackson 5 came along. I know he was Motown; that was implicit in what I was writing. What he did wasn't a breakthrough; it was a continuation of what Motown had done before.
Michael Jackson's image was at the height of his teen appeal asexual - of course it was OK for white teenage girls to like him - he was not a threat sexually. The breakthrough would have been if he hadn't been so neutered by Berry Gordy and his marketing people.
And thanks Mrs. Daryl Zero for filling us in on MTV history. I was as much a music fan as movies from the mid-60s to late 70s (I had a Billboard subscription as a teenager, almost unheard of), but I lived in Chicago in the 1980s, and we didn't get cable until several years after MTV was around (seriously, it was one of the last cities). But I recollection was that although Jackson was breakthrough in rotation, he was not remotely the Jackie Robinson of MTV, or that one was needed after years of no black videos shown.
Originally posted by Mrs. Daryl Zero: Technically, MTV did play black artists before Michael Jackson. I do give him a lot of credit for what he did with the video form including helping MTV realize that there were other artists out there besides those in a rock genre since that was MTV's reason as to why they didn't play many artists of color. Michael Jackson was not the first black artist though to appear on MTV. Donna Summer, Tina Turner, Eddie Grant, etc., were all in the rotation before Michael Jackson, and J.J. Jackson of course was one of the first of the five original VJs.
While this is true, Eddy Grant, Tina Turner and Donna Summer were perhaps the ONLY black artists in rotation on MTV prior to Michael Jackson.
The thing to realize here is that there was STILL a color barrier to be broken at MTV, and Michael broke it. At that time, MTV's target audience was white, rock listeners. Grant, Turner, and Summer fit into their target demographic.
There were even MORE black artists who didn't fit the mold. Artists like Michael Jackson, Rick James, Chaka Khan, and Prince had a hard time because they didn't have the look or sound that MTV was going for. The reason they put Eddy, Tina & Donna on the air was because their sound and image appealed to white audiences in a way that MOST black artists didn't at the time.
So despite not technically being the first black artist to be played on MTV, he was indeed the first to break the color barrier. Black music has always had a distinct sound of its own. Jackson was arguably the first to expose MTV to that sound, and he made it possible for artists both older and younger than he was to receive airtime on MTV.
If anything, it heightens this particular achievement of his. The fact that he wasn't the first, but became the one to blow it wide open may be even more significant.
A black man should certainly play Michael Jackson in the early stages of his career. However, unless they can do a knock-up job with make-up, it would be difficult and rather unbelievable for a black man to play him during the later stages in his career. He may have been born black and all, but to totally ignore his physical transformation is absurb. Michael Jackson was whiter than I am these past twenty or so years and I am white. I understand the uproar that it may cause, but like Seanflynn mentioned, it would be much easier for a white or lighter skinned person to effectively and believabley portray Michael (physically) in his later years, as much as it seems difficult for some of you to want to acknowledge that. Ultimately, the blame/uproar wouldn't/shouldn't be on the director or casting person for casting someone like Depp, it would be on Jackson himself (or his father?) for doing whatever he could not to appear black.
Just my two cents.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Troy,
Posts: 10041 | Location: Iowa | Registered: June 09, 2005
So despite not technically being the first black artist to be played on MTV, he was indeed the first to break the color barrier.
If there were black performers shown before, there was no color barrier, at least the way you have described it.
He likely did have a role because he was popular - but that was because his music was popular, he was popular. Was his race irrelevant? Of course not. But I think you are exaggerating.
Meantime - the Obama daughters are Jonas Brothers fans. Please discuss...
Originally posted by seanflynn: And thanks Mrs. Daryl Zero for filling us in on MTV history. I was as much a music fan as movies from the mid-60s to late 70s (I had a Billboard subscription as a teenager, almost unheard of), but I lived in Chicago in the 1980s, and we didn't get cable until several years after MTV was around (seriously, it was one of the last cities). But I recollection was that although Jackson was breakthrough in rotation, he was not remotely the Jackie Robinson of MTV, or that one was needed after years of no black videos shown.
So if you lived in a city that was one of the last to get MTV, then fine. But that doesn't change the fact that you were very dismissive of Michael's achievement at MTV.
And I'm still laughing at the fact that you think Oprah has had a bigger impact than Michael Jackson.
The fact that we're even arguing over the importance of his race as it's relative to his life proves that a black man should portray him. If his being black wasn't important to his iconic status, then maybe it wouldn't matter who played him (although, I'd still contend that a black man play him). However, it's clear that this man was also very important to black history, and that should be honored.
I will say it once again. Casting Johnny Depp, or any other non-black actor as Michael Jackson, completely ignores and disrespects the life, influence and impact of Michael Jackson.
Originally posted by seanflynn: He likely did have a role because he was popular - but that was because his music was popular, he was popular. Was his race irrelevant? Of course not. But I think you are exaggerating.
Tell this to any music historian who documented the music industry during the beginning stages of MTV and they will tell you that there was indeed a color barrier to be broken that Michael Jackson was responsible for breaking it.
You're pushing your own artistic agendas around this discussion, and you're ignoring his impact as an African-American in order to do it.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: MrTalented,
it's clear that this man was also very important to black history, and that should be honored
The notion that casting someone in a dramatization of someone's life should somehow "honor" the person's race is incompehenisble to me, as long as the casting makes sense for the individual involved and can convincingly play him. I try to understand what you have been saying, but it really seems to come down to he was black, being black was an important part of his life, his achievements were important for blacks, therefore he must be played by the black, irrespective of whether a white actor for part of his life might be as or more effective (and indeed highlight one of the major conflicts of his life).
Sorry, that line of reason is antithetical to all I know about art and honor in creative drama.
Once again - whatever role he had in changing the rotation at MTV and this effecting popular culture 25+ years ago for me has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether it might make sense for Johnny Depp to play him. Zero. Nada. Your description of its importance for the sake of argument I'll grant. But in doesn't change my opinion one bit.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
