La responsabilidad del blanco

It is JUST a movie!!! geez... you all are giving this movie too much power. It is meant to ENTERTAIN. The movie's soul purpose was to illustrate many popular stereotypes. Any mature audience would recognize that it was only meant to do this and NOT to properly represent either role for the sake of being politically correct. However, it is apparent that many of you find it offensive or brutal because you feel that "your race" was being misrepresented. Speaking as an African American female, I understood that this movie was ONLY meant to open my eyes to society's view of race roles of blacks and whites in America. Sure black people dont walk around with duck-tape on their jackets (as in the scene with the thugs at the restaurant) and little black girls do not have easy access to a revolver that they are permitted to use in the case of an emergency (as in the scene where Belafonte's character hid in a white person's home for safety) and LORD KNOWS a white man will NEVER bring a black girl home to meet his family. *haha* --kiddin'. ("disturbing" comment, huh?)

Well anyways, I think the movie was good for rousing up these feelings of disturbance, however it lost me when the whole kidnapping took place. It became the focal point of the movie and confused many of its viewers. Other than that, the movie was ok. I give it a 8 on a scale from 1 to 10, only because I have never seen such a bold attempt to deal with race roles as this one. Therefore, I enjoyed the movie.

I think the ending was sad. I felt sorry for Travolta, even his son. But I disagree with the comment about "whats the point" because it shows what I go through weekly. I mean, some of it is extreme, but true. And when Belafonte remarked, "well, most of them don't have father's" in response to his wife's comment about the white kids discipline, it was... I'm at a lost for words. I'm watching it again tonight, and I think every white man needs to see the movie, and every black man. It was a trip seeing the roles flipped. But the movie is truly, "a trip". I mean, when Belafonte talks about the "socially crippled, genetically inferior" whites, its a trip, just hearing that. I study psychology, and all these theories are pervasive, and they relate to science by the genetic concepts of the 20th century, i mean, eugenics and it is really wild. Anyway, this is a must see movie. You must see it. I'm mad I didn't know it existed for the last ten years.

I expected good things from this film as I tend to admire directors and screenwriters who take a visually arresting premise and manipulate it in order to prompt self reflection in the audience (The Elephant Man for example). In addition, I am a big fan of Travolta and the role seemed an artistically sound one for him to undertake. Initially, the widespread symbolism is interesting and inventive, yet becomes overbearing relatively quickly, and to me it seemed that the director underestimated his audience's perception and continually rammed home his point with the subtlety of Dolph Lundgren.

The film ultimately left me frustrated because I thought the idea was a good one but the story simply wasn't multi-faceted enough to be engaging. Aside from the characters played by Travolta and Belafonte, most of the supporting cast was very underwritten, particularly the families of both men. However, the performances were very good, and I thought Belafonte conveyed the defeatism and inherent arrogance of his role particularly well.

Overall though, I thought this was pseudo-art: it masqueraded as a deep and meaningful examination of the social relevance of race, but ended up as a very simplistic story disguised by delusions of self worth.

5/10

Alternative history is certainly one of the more compelling aspects of speculative fiction . Anyone who has seen the DOCTOR WHO story Inferno would be hard pressed to forget it , Robert Harris's Fatherland is a unforgettable novel and whilst I have no wish to read any of his books Harry Turtledove is a very popular author . In short premises featuring alternative planet Earths' and their different histories are thought provoking to say the least and when it was announced that John Travolta ( Let's not forget how massive a star he was then after PULP FICTION ) was going to be starring in an alternative future film where the roles of black and white are reversed the studio execs would have quite rightly tapped themselves on their shoulders knowing they were making a massive hit

Strangely I'd forgotten all about this movie until it was broadcast on BBC1 a couple of nights ago and it's not difficult to understand why it's an obscure flop . The film starts with a black family gathered at the dinner table where patriarch and businessman Thaddues Thomas states his dislike for white people and their problems . Cut to Louis Pinnock who who works for Thomas company and lives in a rough area where his neighbours all seem to be pecker woods . Later due to a series of contrived , not very well written circumstances Pinnock loses his job with the company and decides to kidnap Thomas

The problem with WHITE MANS BURDEN is that this is an alternative world where Black Americans are at the apex of social hierarchy while whites are at the bottom bu this scenario is never ever explored . In fact the only things were shown that things are so mightily different is when someone is flipping the TV channel that show amongst other things a western where all the calvarymen are black . I know this was made in 1995 but is director Desmond Nakano saying there's no white equivalent of Morgan Freeman , Condaleeza Rice or Colin Powell ? For goodness sake we're even shown a black golfer on TV . Is this version of America without a white golfing prodigy called Alpine Woods ?

So that's the main problem and an unforgivable one where we're told that everything is different but as the plot rolls along we find ourselves asking what is actually different ? The audience are shown a couple of black cops being confronted by an angry white mob ( This doesn't happen in " our " America ? ) , a white man with a black companion are threatened by pecker woods ( This doesn't happen in " our " America ? ) etc , etc . At no point is the premise used to explore how anything would be different in " our " America . If you made a film set in " our " America where a disgruntled white employee kidnaps his racist black boss then you would not have to alter one single word never a single scene from this screenplay . And disgruntled employees kidnapping nasty employer type redemption plots we never all that compelling in the first place

"White Man's Burden" has a (reasonably) neat premise: society is reversed so the black man is in the white man's current place. The idea is this allows us to tackle our prejudices and preconceived notions about society. Does it work? No, it's too busy being laughable or boring.

From the opening I felt chills. Was this chocolate factory scene, brown being poured on top of white, some horribly clumsy use of imagery? I feared so. The film looked set to be heavy-handed, and it was. The movie's flaw is that it over-does it's premise - nearly all the white people are poor and rundown, while all the black people come across as elitist snobs. The underlying message of course being that in "our reality" the situation is reversed and this gives a horribly, simplistic, and downright irritating attitude towards race. It's completely simplistic and infuriating - not because you're angered that it's right but because it's done so poorly and with a preachiness that grates.

It might all be OK if there was a story to support it. There isn't. Reeking of TV movie-of-the-week, John Travolta is playing a desperate factory-worker who kidnaps his ex-boss in a bid to get the money he lost from being fired unfairly. *Yawn*. There's no suspense and no tension in their scenes. There's the boring, trite situation where the boss, played by Harry Belafonte, starts to understand Travolta's cause. Far too obvious in coming. There's even the hilariously poor moment when Belafonte's son takes home a white girl to a look of distaste from his mother - bang that message-hammer on our heads Mr Nakano (the script writer). I'm reminded of a moment from "Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood" when the character is similarly preachy and the postman turns to the screen and says "Message!" pointing out how morale messages are weakly delivered. In fact the only decent bit is about two minutes from the end, and even that's ruined by the (incredibly) obvious follow-up final minute. *Yawn*.

Travolta does nothing for this picture. This film was released after his sudden re-emerge in "Pulp Fiction", but I imagine he made it while still wandering around the Turkey Farm. His performance is as forgettable, as is usual with him and Belafonte is just OK.

Nothing can make me recommend this piece. If you want a movie about race issues why not watch the infinitely superior "American History X". This movie has a dreadful plot, weak acting, and destroys a promising premise by being both heavy-handed and insultingly simplistic. Avoid. 2/10.