Shoot the Messenger

This TV film was shocking yet truthful at times. Yes, the film discusses racism and the prejudices facing black people in British society. However, it cleverly illustrates the lack of support within the black community, it shows the lead character, a teacher who believes that by giving his troubled black pupils detention, he can enforce education on them.

However, when a particular student accuses him of assault his own community turn against him. From that he goes on a journey in discovering and highlighting the problems, for example, black single mothers, black troubled youths, black religious beliefs, and so on, do not judge this film, if you have not seen it. I am not going to give too much away, because I do not want to spoil it for anyone. I found it extremely funny and upsetting at times, do not avoid this film .

STAR RATING: ***** Jodie Marsh **** Michelle Marsh *** Kym Marsh ** Rodney Marsh * Hackney Marsh

Joe Pescale (David Oyelowo) used to have a good job in IT but gave it all up to become a teacher and try to turn around the lives of the disadvantaged black kids he was teaching. He is the only black teacher in a school of predominantly black kids but he soldiers on regardless trying to make a difference. But it all goes wrong one day when he taps a troublesome pupil named Gemal (David Mnee) on the shoulder, which he blows out of proportion, costing him his job and the venomous spurn of the black community. After a lot of heckling and spurn, he becomes a paranoid recluse and starts imagining that all black people are evil and are out to get him.

As if to whip up controversy like a jelly cake, the original title of the film was going to be F*ck Black People before the conservative BBC decided that would be just a little too provocative and toned it down to the title we have. The film sparked a lot of outrage anyway and was even branded outright BNP propaganda. I can see how people drew this conclusion, as the film plays at times like a none stop rundown of all the various different bad aspects of black culture and the black community, from promiscuous single mothers with many different kids from different fathers to gun crime and failure in the school system. I can see how some may see it as depressing viewing, but I must say I never saw it this way. It's all played in a gritty, pull no punches way but it compels and enlightens you rather than weighing you down. And it's helped no end by Oyelowo in the lead role. The Spooks star delivers a fantastic performance, perfectly conveying paranoia and depression but also giving the film an energetic, enlightening and wryly humorous lead character who focuses on all the negative aspects of his culture in an angry and frustrated but also gleefully cynical way and even offers something of a tip on how things could change. The supporting cast also all shine in smaller roles but as he is carrying the film, he is the main player in making it what it is.

Powerful and hard-hitting, then, and certainly likely to offend some, but it's all (Like it or hate it) true and offers some tough food for thought for all the problems in the black community and the issues it needs to address. ****

It saddens me that the BBC only seem to commission dramas about black people that are either hugely patronising or play on stereotypes. Shoot The Messenger falls into the latter category. I saw this last week and was hopeful and interested to watch a virtually all-black cast. The programme was so heavily publicised that it seemed a sin to ignore it. It started off well, showing Joe, a school teacher who is accused of assault by a young black pupil and subsequently loses his career, but after a ridiculous spell in a mental institution (anyone who has had any dealings with mental illness of any shape or form, will recognise this depiction as puerile and ignorant) he turns against all black people. On his release he then travels through a rich series of vignettes involving bad black people who only seem to reinforce his negative ideas about black culture.

As a young black woman, I suppose if I say that I'm annoyed by the stereotyping and negativity, I probably just don't like to hear the truth. If I say that the depiction of black women as females with non-existent self-esteem is offensive, then again, supporters of this film would argue that the truth hurts. I don't care if our 'laundry' is aired - if it takes this to encourage people to talk the problems with drugs, prison and mental illness which are currently occurring in the black community, then i'm all for it. But please, who are the producers of this fodder kidding? The only reason this programme was made was to increase ratings. The BBC have no moral responsibility to the black community - most of its employees don't know any black people apart from the happy go lucky staff who dish out their lunch at the canteen and the friendly but reserved IT guy who comes to mend their computer.

The point is, there are many gifted, talented black writers out there who have vision and the ability to create a good script seamed together with a solid message that would be understood by all races, who will never get a commission from the BBC simply because they're unwilling to resort to this level. It saddens me to read that so many black people are supporting this film. It seems as if we really are starved of seeing our own images in celluloid.

As can be seen from some of the comments posted here, there are plenty of people intent on 'shooting the messenger', rather than listen to the message itself. In this case, the message happens to be the questioning of blame-culture which exists among certain sections of the black community. It is the contention of the author (Sharon Foster, herself a black writer) that it is this culture, and not that which is being blamed (ie white people), which is the cause of black underachievement. It is a serious argument, and one that can withstand close scrutiny, but that hasn't stopped the usual suspects from using their lazy cries of 'Racism' to try and silence the debate. A similar point was made during the film itself and it is interesting that many of the same terms of abuse used to castigate the main character in the film are identical to the ones being thrown around here (mainly by people who don't appear to have seen it). That would seem to indicate that Foster is, indeed, on to something.

Of course, this film could amount to no more than a 'worthy' drama, but 'Shoot The Messenger' is much more than that, due, in no small measure, to the quality of the writing. Foster has constructed an engrossing journey of self-discovery which begins with provocative words ( a gauntlet deliberately thrown in the face of the audience) uttered by Joe Pascale (excellently played by David Oyelowo), a well-intentioned but somewhat aloof black teacher, who falls foul of the authorities after he is accused of hitting a pupil. The fact that this is not true does not prevent him being vilified on a local black radio station. He loses the case in court and this leads him into a spiral of depression and madness, which he increasingly blames on black people (an interesting inversion of the blaming of white people which seems acceptable among his black contemporaries). I found this portion of the work the least satisfactory since the script sped over his insanity rather too quickly leading to loss of detail. After spending some time on the street, he is befriended by a middle-aged Black Christian lady. It is at this point the script really catches fire with some astute and occasionally hard-hitting views of the black community. All of this is maintained by a high degree of directorial energy and a high class cast. Highly recommended.

Joseph Pascale used to be a computer programmer until he went to a small community meeting where everyone seems to be blaming everyone else for the fact that black boys are the worst performers at schools. Teachers were blamed for pushing them towards sports, schools blamed for not running "ethnic friendly" courses for them while others blamed the lack of schools just for black people. When one person blames the lack of black male teachers, Joe decides to give it a go. In his 70% black school he is the only black teacher and he tries to be a role model – encouraging the ones willing to try and trying to force those unwilling. However when he puts a hand on a boy's shoulder to guide him into a classroom, he is accused of abuse.

Originally to be called "F*** Black People" this film uses its title to let us know its intention to start a debate, to get people agreeing with it or get people disagreeing with it. What it says is that the black community has problems and they need addressing. However whether opening with the line "everything bad that has ever happened to me has involved a black person" may or may not have been the way to go (and, yes, I know the line refers to himself and is part of the point about taking personal responsibility, but it did open the gates for attacks straight away). To its credit the film does tackle difficult subjects head on. In the UK we do have a problem with black boys underachieving; is it racism? Why do other ethnic minority groups not have this problem to the same degree? Trying to address the problem we have the laughable CRE led by Trevor Phillips doing just the same thing – blaming everyone else. It is him and not a BBC drama that I want to hear challenging the black community but in fairness I suppose he is only one man and it is easier to point the finger than do anything else.

Of course the fact that a debate is a good thing doesn't necessarily read that this film is. It has moments that have value but the delivery is rather mixed. On one hand it has a story but on the other it has lots of asides to the camera and these two approaches are not married that well together. Likewise it varies wildly between really well made points and lines that are pure controversy baiters ("bring back slavery – we were good at that")not to mention stuff that comedians were doing a decade ago (stuff about "black" names and weaves). And so the good points that are well made and the interesting lines of debate are lost in the middle of stuff with a lot less value and a lot less interest. It is clear across the film that Joe himself has issues he needs to address but the film does a bad job of communicating what these areas are to us and instead just uses it as an excuse to say whatever he wants whether it is right or not. The cop out at the end is a real letdown as well – Joe learns a lesson and admits he is wrong by saying he won't take back everything he has said but the script doesn't allow him to say what points he made that were wrong and which were right. This leaves it all out there where really the film could have used this ending to summarise what it was saying. By saying "so shoot me" it suggests that maybe it is happy to leave Joe's wrong statements out there and not to deliver a message when it could grab controversy instead. The narrative is also pretty extreme and sees Joe jumping from one end of the scale to the other. The script seems to lack the control to hold it all together and Foster's writing needed a lot more work to build a better, more concise argument within a better story.

Kudos to the BBC for showing it though because this is the sort of thing they should be showing – not offensive or racist stuff but stuff that challenges but isn't commercial enough to get picked up by a channel relying on advertising revenue. I would sooner my license fee went on this than some rubbish sitcom that any channel can churn out (yes "My Hero" I'm looking at you). The direction is good though and the cast generally respond well. It belongs to Oyelowo of course and he is convincing from start to finish – what a shame that the material did not give him more consistency and depth to work with. Of the support cast both Amuka-Bird and the guy playing Jamal did well but nobody else really got the material they go (and even they didn't get that much).

Overall then this is an OK film at best. It mixes good delivery with bad delivery; mixes good points with points just designed to inflame; mixes serious points with "points" that a poor man's Eddie Murphy would reject as being too old and mixes a story with general attacks. Personally I don't think it is racist, naïve or any other mud being slung at it. There is a debate to be had and there are things that are wrong (several of them raised in this film), but this film isn't good enough to make an intelligent enough, sharp enough or meaningful enough summary of them.