I write about culture from a pro-Black perspective

Conflating ‘Gay’ and ‘the DL’: Omari Hardwick on Playing Carl in ‘For Colored Girls’

I’m not entirely sure why folks are so upset at Omari Hardwick’s comments about how he played the role of a confused gay man in For Colored Girls:

Shadow and Act: In Tyler Perry’s “For Colored Girls,” you played Carl. He was the closeted husband to Janet Jackson’s character. How did you develop that role?

OH: Well, I can’t relate to being gay. It was a challenging role.

Shadow and Act: How was it a challenge?

OH: It was a challenging role for me because I am a black guy. And white guys like Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal can play those types of roles and their audiences will say that the roles are artistic.

Shadow and Act: So you feel that the role was challenging because the black community does not support roles like Carl?

OH: The black culture perceives roles like that one in a negative light.

Shadow and Act: How did you prepare for that role?

OH: I focused on being a deviant person. I focused on doing something wrong. I was lying to my wife. I was lying to these men. I prepared for the role by closing my eyes and thinking of times when I had lied.

Shadow and Act: You did not focus on the sexual orientation of Carl to get into character?

OH: No, because it’s like how could I do that really well? I focused on being deviant.

Shadow and Act: Did you tap into your own sexuality to build the role?

OH: You want me to explain how I used my heterosexuality to build this role?

Shadow and Act: Yes, I do.

OH: Okay, let me know if this is what you mean. There was this one time while we were filming in New York, where I was testing myself. l challenged myself to run through Central Park and behave like Carl. I wanted to see how I would run and live differently as my character.

Shadow and Act: And what did you find out about your character during this run?

OH: I did not get through the run without checking out women. It’s a natural instinct. So, that’s why I solely focused on being deviant. But you know what? Some of the greatest actors have played gay men. Anthony has played a gay man. Jeffrey has played gay. When it’s all said and done, I am secure enough with my manhood to say to the world, “I am a male actor, and its okay for me to play a gay man.”

Rod thinks he doth protest too much, but it seems to me like Hardwick is saying (in an admittedly inarticulate way) that he focused less on his character’s sexuality and more on the fact that he was lying to everyone in his life. That doesn’t strike me as offensive.

Citing Brokeback Mountain I think is telling because it suggests that he’s talking less about sexuality itself and more about the construction of “the DL.” It isn’t just that the black community might respond more negatively to a black man playing gay than the white community does to a white man playing gay. It’s that the reaction Hardwick is talking about is specifically about “the DL” and the reaction of black people in the context of the way that term has been pathologized as a uniquely black problem. Carl is a reviled character because he’s “DL” not because he’s “gay.” Hardwick doesn’t articulate this well because he is likely conflating the two terms (as many people do).

It’s important to remember that it wasn’t Carl’s story being told in For Colored Girls. Carl wasn’t a character, he was an archetype. J.L. King’s DL concoction in full effect. A black woman’s worst nightmare. We weren’t asked to contemplate Carl’s torment, his self-loathing, his struggle, or his humanity. He existed to contribute to Tyler Perry’s weird and virulently inhumane re-working of a masterpiece. Nothing more.

I think we do want actors to put in the best work they can and try to infuse even the flattest and most ridiculous characters with dimension, but I don’t even know what playing Carl more “gay” would have looked like – or what that even means.

It’s easy to get distracted by Hardwick’s inarticulate comments here, rather than sustain a critique of Perry’s bad writing and penchant for anti-homosexual sentiment in his films. But it’s not really the real problem.



Posted on August 29th, 2012 - Filed under Film,Sexuality
Tags :: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Evolution of Jill Scott

The most enjoyable thing about Jill Scott’s evolution is watching her become increasingly comfortable showing how much she revels in being a beautiful woman.

I didn’t really care for her first studio album and much of her second – too much coffeehouse pretension and abstraction in the lyrics for my tastes – because I felt on those early records that she was writing songs that she thought fit the image of her (mother soul goddess) rather than songs that let us connect with the woman behind the image. And that wasn’t all that interesting to me. To have all that voice and just sing about generic sentiment seemed a waste.

Read All »



Posted on August 2nd, 2011 - Filed under Music
Tags :: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On Real Women, Intention, and Nicki Minaj

I watch Nicki Minaj’s videos, like this most recent one:

 

 

and I listen to her songs, particularly this new collabo with Eminem:

 

 

and I wonder if Nicki is going to admit that the characters are bullshit.

If the song wasn’t called “Roman’s Revenge” there’d be no way to distinguish Roman from Nicki Minaj. Roman Zolanski doesn’t even emerge here as a fully formed persona*. None of her personas do. None of it feels to me like an artist experimenting with persona, so much as an artist who likes to play with inflection was asked why she likes to play with inflection and gave some silly answer that makes her sound more intentional and creative than I think she is.

And now she’s sorta forced to do songs in these voices. But she has not yet figured out how to make these characters distinct enough that the performances feel fluid, or even clash in ways that convincingly portray schizophrenia.

Why not just go for broke and make these characters truly distinct? Give them each their own flow, cadence, point of view. I mean…something.

I don’t know. My girl Alyssa admires what she does visually, but I just see a disgusting orientalism that is even more offensive than when Gwen Stefani was doing it. But it does intrigue me that her visual artistry bests her musical artistry, at least in so far as it feels coherent and complete a statement…of something.

We are in an historical moment where larger than life women (Lady Gaga and Janelle Monae) are more interesting than real women (Chrisette Michelle and Jazmine Sullivan). What bothers me tremendously about that – particularly in the case of black women who just have a hard time if they aren’t jezebels like Beyonce or earth mother soul goddesses like Jill Scott** – is that when you strip away the larger than life part, there just isn’t much there.

It just seems like a bunch of women who grew up watching Madonna and Grace Jones and only saw reinvention, not intention.

 

*In fairness, Eminem’s Slim Shady persona never felt all that real to me either.  There was a loose distinction between The Slim Shady LP, The Marshall Mathers LP, and The Eminem Show, but nowhere near as great and distinct as I think was intended.  That said, he never pimped this trinity in quite the way Nicki Minaj is pimping these personas.

*To be clear, I’m talking about the image and marketing of these two women. Though Beyonce’s first album was a three-dimensional statement of young black womanhood at the start of the 21st century, the image that was sold was one of a wanton sexual creature. Jill did a whole album that sexualized and humanized her and people hated it.  So I think both women are capable of complicating their personas, but it’s unlikely that the marketplace will notice and respond favorably.



Posted on November 7th, 2010 - Filed under Music
Tags :: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,