The Boomerang Effect (and why Jacqueline's story is important)

This post first appeared on The Loop 21 three years ago (The Loop 21 has since deleted the article...boo!). My article prompted a thoughtful response from director, Reginald Hudlin, which was also deleted by The Loop 21 (ugh!). Anyhoo, here's my take on one of my favorite movies of all time, Boomerang, and why I think Jacqueline's story is important.

It’s hard to believe that eighteen years ago audiences around the country first laughed out loud at the box office hit film Boomerang (1992). The movie, arguably one of Eddie Murphy’s best films, introduced us to Bony T (Chris Rock), the incomparable antics of Strange (Grace Jones), and blessed us with Mr. Jackson’s (John Witherspoon) now legendary phrase, “Bang! Bang! Bang!” Without a doubt, Boomerang is one of the best American comedies of the twentieth century.

I’ve watched Boomerang at least several dozen times throughout my life (I was eleven years old when the film was first released). Each time I watch the film, I gather something new, whether it be one of Tyler’s (Martin Lawrence) pro-black conspiracy theories or the unintended comical reactions of an extra on the exercise machine in the background.

However, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve watch the movie with a different lens--a more grown up one, if you will. Needless to say, the more I watch Boomerang the more I notice Robin Givens’ character, Jacqueline, as the quintessential villain presumably because she can manage a career and a sex life.

Let me explain.

I've always been more interested in Jacqueline, a highly successful and sexual Black woman, than Marcus, the predictable dunce who eventually learns a lesson about love. My main argument is that while both Marcus and Jacqueline are flawed, it only seems that Marcus gets rewarded in the end by living a happy life with Angela (Halle Berry) and Jacqueline gets vilified, never seen or heard from again. The thematic conclusion presented in the plot eerily reflects real world assumptions about sex and romantic relationships.

(Note: The point of this article is not to set up useless binaries between heterosexual men and women, but to explore how the relationships presented in Boomerang might be a reflection of society's problem with successful, independent, sexual, and loving women.)

I’ll start with the counter arguments then explain the problems with each as it relates to a larger discussion of gender and sexuality in the context of romantic relationships.

Counterargument #1: It’s not about Jacqueline being able to manage a career and sex life, it’s about my man Marcus being done wrong!

In fact the story is also about Jacqueline, though the Hudlin Brothers and Eddie Murphy chose to highlight Marcus as the central character who can learn from love.  We never know what happened to Jacqueline after she told Marcus “it’s over” and left hurriedly to catch the cab. We also don’t know what happened to Jacqueline after Marcus left her in the bed upon realizing he loved Angela. Did Jacqueline find another lover, (perhaps a woman?), to fill the void that Marcus left? As the audience, we’re left to assume that Jacqueline 'got what she deserved' because she was cold-hearted (similar to how Marcus was earlier in the movie).

Interestingly enough (as noted on the DVD audio commentary), “the Executives at Paramount Pictures were nervous about casting Robin Givens in the film because she was disliked by many in the general public due to her past with Mike Tyson.”

Hudlin continues to say however, “that actually made [Givens] perfect for the role, that she was this formidable person, and a match for Eddie Murphy, who also had an increpid reputation as a ladies' man. So, I wanted the audience to feel like this would be a fair fight.”

Mr. Hudlin’s boxing references were not unintentional. Robin Givens was perfect for the role, not simply because she could act, but because of her public battle with ex-lover, Mike Tyson. Essentially Jacqueline’s character, played by a women who in real life was was ostracized publicly for her relationship with a successful Black man, was thought of as a formidable opponent to Eddie Murphy’s character Marcus because she could match wits with him sexually and intellectually.

Robin Givens was the perfect woman to play Jacqueline, the villain, because in real life she was the villain.

The idea of woman as villain, both real and imagined, also speaks to a larger societal issue concerning successful and outspoken women who publicly battle with (what should be) private romantic relationships. Often times these battles involve more than simply a lovers quarrel, but rather serious issues concerning domestic violence and sexual abuse. Whether it be Mike Tyson or Marcus Graham, to suggest that either have been 'done wrong' by a woman seems a bit shortsighted, but nonetheless a predictable response in a patriarchal society that has yet to accept its role in the proliferation of gender biases while minimizing the complexhood of a woman's sexuality within romantic relationships.

Counterargument #2: Jacqueline is karma in the flesh, not a villain.

Women are not personifications of abstract ideas, but rather, we are human beings; the stuff that personification is actually made of. As Hollywood depicts women as karma in the flesh and thereby saviors of men, the reality is that "the over-reliance on 'woman wisdom' leads to lack of accountability on the part of men."  In a society that is infatuated with categories, we have to keep in mind that each time we label women and men based on constructions, we also Otherize them, turning the individual into an idea or an object that’s easier to judge, trivialize, and indeed scrutinize.

By accepting Jacqueline as the villain, we also assume that her purpose is to teach Marcus a lesson, and essentially make us feel better about reconciling the guilt of treating someone in our lives wrongly. What about Jacqueline’s autonomy and personhood? Granted she too was flawed, as noted earlier, but can we honestly accept that her flaws only served as means to make Marcus (the man in her life) a better person?

Notably, the scene between Marcus and Angela highlights this issue. When Marcus audaciously tells Angela, “I’m a better person because of you” we understand that Marcus still doesn’t get it (as illustrated when Angela slaps him in the face). Though despite Marcus’ misuse of Angela, he still gets the girl in the end.

The Importance of Jacqueline’s Story

Which brings me back to why I’m interested in Jacqueline’s story. Though she’s as flawed as Marcus, she’s also extremely powerful in her own right. Her sexuality, intelligence, and success, though mysterious for the most part, are relatable. It’s unfortunate, however, that her story wasn’t intriguing enough for the writers to make it central to the plot. Though, it may just be a refection of how we haven’t reached the point yet where stories like Jacqueline’s are welcomed in public discourse about romantic relationships. While Steve Harvey tells women and men how to act, some of us are (or will eventually be) brave enough to tell our own stories.

At times, I wish another Boomerang would be produced so I can admire the characters all over again. But as one friend reminded me, "some movies have to be appreciated in our past, never in present."

Indeed.

Media Analysis On Violence, Rape, and Little Red Riding Hood

RED, from directors Jorge Jaramillo and Carlo Guillot is an interpretation based on the fairy tale "Little Red Ridding Hood". Jaramillo and Guillot's interpretation is gruesomely violent, and yet (as I will further explore below), is also a beautiful take on a classic story. Here is a description of the piece from the directors:

"Based on a true fairy tale. As the silhouette of a lonely girl runs through the woods, something in the shadows is lurking her. RED is an animated short film, which presents a new version of the classic tale "Little Red Riding Hood" by Charles Perrault. The directors Jorge Jaramillo and Carolo Guillot explore more thoroughly the drama, horror, and realism of the story. A journey of feelings and moments, with visual and musical elements existing only to carry a clear and strong narrative. In RED the directors based on traditional shadows animation, giving it a new perspective by using technology to create a new concept, while maintaining the visual and narrative force of the classic technique."

[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/38704159 w=500&h=281]

I should also note that Elizabeth Marshall (2004) argued that classic tales like "Little Red Riding Hood" were initially "tied to practices of childhood rearing . . .and disciplining young readers into normative heterosexual femininity and masculinity" (pg. 261). The original tale of "Little Red Riding Hood" was just as violent in that the story functioned as a psychological ploy to discipline children into gender norms. Now we might understand this piece as relates to the sexuality of young girls and rape culture, as Marshall writes,

“Little Red Riding Hood, like constructions of rape victims in contemporary discourses of law and media, was in unauthorized territory, the forest rather than the home, talking in a free and uninhibited way to a male who wasn't her husband or father. In popular parlance, Little Red "’asked for it’" (268).

"Little Red Riding Hood"'s violent beginnings has since been diluted as a tale of childhood fantasy, that is until now with Jaramillo and Guillot's interpretation.

I'm uncertain about the primary audience toward which Jaramillo and Guillot's piece is targeted. However, given that this piece has since gone viral (largely due to Jezebel.com's write-up) and is readily available on Vimeo, I'm sure the piece has been consumed by people of various ages and groups.

Number of violent acts: 1

The nature of violent acts: RED physically slaughters the wolf with a knife and breaks the wolf's neck, killing the wolf in a violent confrontation. I would be remiss not to mention the psychological violence associated with this exchange. Though RED is an animated girl, one can only imagine that if she were 'real' the pychological impact of such a gruesome act would have long lasting traumatic effects.

Harris' discusses cartoon violence as "stylized and unrealistic" and as a result may "induce[d] fear or desensitization" (pg. 273) in viewers since the events could not happen in 'real life'. In other words, it seems Harris is arguing that viewers might allow themselves to indulge effortlessly in cartoon violence, which can also be humorous, since there is less 'real life' consequences tied to the media itself. Perhaps it is much easier to suspend fear in an animated world. For me, however, this piece is cathartic. If I had to categorize my reaction to the piece based on the readings, I might relate my reaction to the fear-of-victimization effect, with some caveats. I do not necessarily think that RED's cathartic effect has to do with the idea that the more media like RED that I consume, the more I am afraid of becoming a victim of violence (Bushman, et al., pg. 364). However, I do feel a sense of what Harris describes as an "emotional purging" (pg. 276) when I watch the piece. I enjoy watching RED, not necessarily for the violence acts themselves, but rather because the violent acts are perpetrated on a known perpetrator, the wolf. It may be that I am experiencing what Sparks identifies as post-viewing gratification related to the character, RED, herself. I find pleasure, albeit intellectual, in watching RED kill the wolf. She avenges the death of Little Red, whom she apparently drags away at the end of the piece. This act of vengeful violence appeals to my sense that the wolf, or the rapist/murderer, got what he deserved. RED avenges the victim's death, and all (seems) right in the world. Aside from the gratification quality of the work, the technical aspects involved in the piece are quite beautiful.

An aside:

When Walter Benjamin quoted poet Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, "War is beautiful", in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Production, he was doing so to express the aesthetics of war. For Marinetti, the physical structure of weapons and even the printed propaganda associated with war was artful. In the case of RED, (or the technology involved in the production of RED), this piece has an aesthetic, albeit violent, quality. This is not to say, however, that the violent acts themselves are to be admired.

For me, RED is a beautifully produced piece of technology art. The directors tell a story that is both well-produced and thoughtfully mediated with the use of technology. Aside from it's technical merits, I find that this story is beautiful because I understand that humanity is often found in some of the most gruesome and perverse expressions. RED is essentially an aesthetically stunning piece of callous emotion. Yet I understand that the aesthetics of violence in this case is beautiful only because the nature of the violent act itself is vile.

I also admit that my sense of gratification might be based on prior experiences engaging in domestic violence and sexual assault advocacy as well as my academic background in gender studies. Certainly Marshall's discussions on "Little Red Riding Hood" sat in the back of my mind as I watched this piece. Considering all of the exposure to prior experiences and perspectives, perhaps I was primed (Sparks, pg. 91) for this moment, and reacted according to previous associations with the "Little Red Riding Hood" tale.

References

Benjamin, W. (1968). Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books. Bushman, B.J., Husemann, L.R., & Whitaker, J.L. (2009). Violent media effects. In Nabi, R.L. & Oliver, M.B. (Eds.), Media processes and effects. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Harris, R. (2009). Violence: Watching all that mayhem really matters. In A cognitive psychology of mass media. (5th ed). pp. 257-290. Marshall, E. (2004). Stripping for the wold: Rethinking representations of gender in children's literature. Reading Research Quarterly. 39(3). pp. 256-270. Sparks, G.G. (2010). Effects of media violence. In Media effects research: A basic overview. pp. 80-104. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Thinking about pilot study, cert exam, and dissertation topic . . .

. . . and things seem to be a lot clearer than two weeks ago (professor Kinzer would be proud of me!). I'm currently re-reading professor AnaLouise Keating's piece "(De)Centering the Margins? Identity Politics and Tactical (Re)Naming" while thinking about the post I wrote last week on Melissa Harris-Perry and Joan Walsh, WHILE thinking about a possible pilot study that I may want to conduct based on the curriculum I helped design with Beyond The Bricks for young 'Black' men, WHILE thinking about the impending certification exam I'm going to take in February as part of the doctoral candidacy process, WHILE thinking that I may, in fact, be well on my way to deciding upon a dissertatation topic.

The topic, you ask? Something that has to do with the following (in connection, no particular order):

21st century media literacy curriculum design in non-traditional learning environments

Intersectionality/Reductivism

Making visible outliers in 'race' and 'gender'-based studies/methodology

I am a threshold woman of color tactically (re)naming my place in this world. How boutchu?

< Shout out to Dr. Keating >