MovieChat Forums > His Girl Friday (1940) Discussion > Racist?

Racist?

posted 11 years ago by theoctobercountry
8 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS FOLLOW: Don't read if you haven't seen the film.

I just watched this film for the very first time, and thought it was curious that it was stressed that a black cop was killed, in the case that drives the plot.

Now, that fact plays into the plot when it is noted that since the "colored" vote is quite influential in this town, the authorities up for re-election want to secure that vote by punishing the killer of a black man. However---historically speaking, cop-killers were already particularly reviled by the general public. If the script had merely specified that the authorities wanted to appear tough on crime, and punish the murderer of a member of the police force, it would have served the plot just as well.

Well, in the final reel we see that the murder is NOT executed. And so I couldn't help but wonder.... Would the movie-going public of 1940 have taken exception to the fact that the cop-killer got off scot-free in the end if the policeman had been white? Did the fact that the cop was black somehow make it more palatable to the viewers, many of whom surely viewed black people as being less important than Caucasians back in those extremely racist times? (Okay, America is STILL very racist, but let's face it---things were MUCH worse back in 1940.)

[–] gyrogypsy 10 years ago

Stand down Captain PC.
Williams didn't get off "scot free" - he was insane and everyone knew it. By making the issue about attracting votes from a certain demographic made the political storyline work.
Go back to the conversation when the "coloured cop" was mentioned - they were discussing his mental problems and Bruce asked why the authorities "didn't just put him away" and that's where the political argument came from.
Williams was given a reprieve of execution, not a full pardon. He likely rotted away the rest of his life in a 1940s asylum. Sounds like a lot of fun.

[–] Stratego (29277) 10 months ago

Bull...shit...

[–] JacintoCupboard 9 years ago

I agree that is a strange, and objectively un necessary, piece of elaboration. I suspect you are right, that the audience of the day would not have responded positively to the idea of a cop killer being helped unless that cop's life had a diminished value in their eyes by being black.

Frankly, it makes no sense to specify the cop's colour otherwise. And it isn't PC to point that out.

While I'm here, it's a crap movie and not worth the investment of an hour and a half.

[–] TheArgentinian (6457) 3 years ago

Because the senator needed the black vote.

[–] e_k_cinephile 9 years ago

I agree with the OP's comment. It seemed like a way of audience manipulation.

[–] TheArgentinian (6457) 3 years ago

But it was also progressive to not make the killer black.

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 2 years ago

Why is saying 'colored people' somehow wrong and yet saying 'people of color' is ok? I guess it's not any worse than being called 'cracka'. I've never heard of anyone being punished for using that term.

Maybe someone should let those people in on what the letters in NAACP stand for. Not that they would care. Some people are allowed to get away with hypocrisy (people of color) and others aren't (crackas).

[–] Stratego (29277) 10 months ago

You're kind of a whiner, but do have a point somewhere in that nonsense.

The explicit mention of the cop being black did seem strange, but there was also a lot of talk of communists/socialists. To me, it rather felt like the script was written by Republicans mocking the left. Democrats do anything to win the black vote and communists/socislists are a danger to poor, vunerable Americans. I mean, they have a point, but this was a terrible way to make it.