Marred by racist scene - Sullivan's Travels (1942) Discussion

[–] hotspurpagg 13 years ago

Well, yes, rather cringe-worthy except:

* this film is from 1941, not '49.

* you're the one calling the cook an "idiot." The fact that he gets his face caked with white (and doesn't wipe it off) is a dumb joke, but it does dovetail with the bit a few minutes earlier when the white cop gets his face blackened with mud. (I wonder if Spielberg was inspired by "Sullivan's" to reuse this gag in "1941.")

* blacks are given dignity later in the film in the church scene when the prisoners join them to watch the "picture show."

reply

[–] rmatlan 13 years ago

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The cook seen was cringe worthy, and he looks foolish, but so do the people farther up front in the land yacht. Being in the kitchen he has more props to work with, but it is silly.

I think the scene in the church is far more significant. First, the people in the church were presented in a highly respectful manner. Second, the song they sing is an explicitly civil rights song (Let My People Go) which is nothing short of amazing for 1941. Third, the preacher talks about the prisoners and says they should be treated with respect because they are God's children also and he reminds everyone that even though some might see them as beneath them, they really aren't. A Black preacher lecturing his congregation on why they shouldn't look on these white people as inferior? I was surprised and especially when you consider the fact I can't recall ANYWHERE seeing this kind of message in a mainstream film at this time (I don't recall any of Capra's films ever dealing with race even obliquely). ANyone else?

reply

[–] johnf_sf 13 years ago

some people you just can't please

reply

[–] FrankDamage 13 years ago

And some people dont have enough in THIS day and age to get their boxers in a bunch, so they need to go back over 70 years to express their "outrage" at something they haven't even bothered to consider in full context. Its highly unlikely from that limited scene (particularly taking into account the later scene in the church) that the film maker desired to ridicule race, but instead was going for laughs of the day. I suppose the fact that a significant portion of the cast were not caucasian and there were limited roles at the time for "minorities" which afforded them this opportunity in Hollywood, was never taken into account by him (or her, as the case may be).

reply

[–] andrewwjohnson 12 years ago

One: The movie was made in 1941 when racism was tolerated and even encouraged in many places.

Two: After years of Al Jolson black face the sight of the black cook in accidental white face seemed like payback.

Three: As others on this thread have pointed out there is the scene at the church. Can you imagine after being depicted as slaves, buffoons, mammy's, maids, ignorant natives and other stereotypes how refreshing it must have been, to black audiences, to be depicted as just people?

TAG LINE: True genius is a beautiful thing, but ignorance is ugly to the bone.

reply

[–] aciolino 12 years ago

Oh, please. You know nothing of blackface, Jolson, comedy traditions, or theater.

This character is a comic character. Foolish. Yes. But the film is FILLED with foolish characters doing stupid things, most of them white.

Jesus, how absurdly, revisionist and rather childlike.

The blacks who were portrayed in the church scene were portrayed as not only dignified but as very wise. What does THAT tell you?

Your observations inform us more about YOU than on what is actually in the film.

reply

[–] nocomputer1962 12 years ago

Since SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS is, in part, a satire on intelligent directors who sell out by making silly, crowd-pleasing comedies, it only makes sense that the equally intelligent Sturges would include a lot of timeworn slapstick bits in this movie. The joke is actually on us in the audience for laughing at the land yacht chase, since we've already been lectured by Sturges (speaking through the character of John Sullivan) that we shouldn't be laughing at this kind of thing anymore.

reply

[–] Scudpipes 12 years ago

Racist? Oh dear... what about the tramp who clocks Sullivan later on and steals his money - a negative portrayal of down and outs... shame on you sir, for disparaging this fine, fine film

reply

[–] Gregorioshoplateia 9 years ago

Exactly!

reply

[–] marvelass 9 years ago

Three: As others on this thread have pointed out there is the scene at the church. Can you imagine after being depicted as slaves, buffoons, mammy's, maids, ignorant natives and other stereotypes how refreshing it must have been, to black audiences, to be depicted as just people?

In fact, upon seeing the film, the Secretary of the NAACP, Walter White, wrote to Sturges:

I want to congratulate and thank you for the church sequence in Sullivan's Travels. This is one of the most moving scenes I have seen in a moving picture for a long time. But I am particularly grateful to you, as are a number of my friends, both white and colored, for the dignified and decent treatment of Negroes in this scene. I was in Hollywood recently and am to return there soon for conferences with production heads, writers, directors, and actors and actresses in an effort to induce broader and more decent picturization of the Negro instead of limiting him to menial or comic roles. The sequence in Sullivan's Travels is a step in that direction and I want you to know how grateful we are.

.

reply

[–] PatrickCurren 11 years ago

>>the song they sing is an explicitly civil rights song (Let My People Go)<<

The song is called "Go Down, Moses".

reply

[–] gribfritz2 11 years ago

Shhhh! Black people were shown in a positive light in that scene! Don't mention it! Bury it and forget about it or the PC police will have nothing to complain about! We must keep harping on the short, comical, throwaway part where a black person is stereotypical and acts foolish!

reply

[–] usarmycwo 9 years ago

Perfectly articulated, rmatlan, thanks. Not a word I can add.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WoodrowTruesmith 7 years ago

Actually, Capra was noteworthy for using black characters in significant and non-simpleton roles. Annie (Lillian Randolph) in 'It's a Wonderful Life' may be a domestic employee of the Bailey family, but she gives as good as she gets, calling George and Harry "lunkheads." He went out of his way to put black faces (and Asian) in crowd scenes and montage scenes that most other producers or directors routinely cast all-white. (Contrast the black people in the Baileys' home at the end of 'It's a Wonderful Life' with the vanilla population of Robert Riskin's 'Magic Town.')

Clarence Muse was a favorite actor of Capra's, and as Whitey, he's basically Dan Brooks's partner in 'Broadway Bill' (1934) and its 1950 remake 'Riding High' (Warner Baxter in the original, Bing Crosby in the redo.) But it's a sign of how much the culture changed during WW2 that the NAACP praised Whitey's friendship with Brooks in 1934, while 17 years later, critic Manny Farber in the New Yorker termed the same role, performed by the same actor, saying the same lines, a "happy slave."

And recall that Capra produced "The Negro Soldier" as part of the Why We Fight series in WW2, and hired black writer Carlton Moss to write it. This was the first film out of Hollywood (albeit a propaganda film) to treat black men as heroes to be celebrated, as opposed to comics, fools and cowards. It was shown not just to soldiers, but to civilian audiences, and paved the way for Truman's postwar desegregation of the military, which began the Civil Rights era.

reply

[–] guy_in_west_houston 12 years ago

For crying out loud - it was just slapstick. Did you notice the White folks weren't fairing much better in the land yacht either?... I suggest Blacks were under-represented as hobos and prisoners. And what the hell - no Asians, Latinos or Natives?. I suppose Sullivan's Travels will never be shown on BET, CSPAN, or any other (we're not racist, we just don't like Whitey) stations.

reply

[–] cbee43 8 years ago

Yeah, just like you never see black actors "starring" on TCM not even during black history month. So now what smart ass"

reply

[–] idcook 12 years ago

I'm the sort of viewer who takes this kind of thing very seriously, but I can't agree with your take on the scene for all the reasons others here have already stated.

Not a single performer in that scene gets out clean so far as being made a fool is concerned except the 13-year-old driver. The cop, the photographer, the land yacht driver, the stenographer, the pr man, even Sullivan himself, are tossed ass on end in a moving version of a Rube Goldberg panel.

If you think about it you'll see that almost nothing that could happen to the cook in that scene, pancake batter not withstanding, would've extended him a whit more dignity than any of the other characters.

Perhaps the worst that could be said is that he never took time to wipe the batter off after the chase ended; but that fits right in with all the old-style of humor the film is calling to task.

We already know that people are far from perfect, but it helps if we take time to recognize and give a little credit to whatever efforts are made to remedy the human condition.

This film, though perhaps not as well as one person or another might like, makes a good try at doing that.

“Your thinking is untidy, like most so-called thinking today.” (Murder, My Sweet)

reply

[–] aciolino 12 years ago

You people are all self-centered idiots.

There is no racism in this film. The cook is portrayed as a comic character. Period. That he is black is irrelevant.

Al Jolson was no racist, neither was his use of blackface. You all need to relax and go back to school and learn something about the past, that you can't judge it by today's standards, which, by the way, are far lower.

reply

[–] vinidici 12 years ago

aciolino: Al Jolson was many things, narcissistic self-promoter among them; but I agree he was no racist. He was welcomed in every African American night club he ever set foot in, and it's a no-brainer that if the black community of his day and age had resented him, he most certainly WOULDN'T have been allowed in their night clubs.

It's just unfortunate that he persisted with the use of black face make-up when this tradition had been petering out among his peer and contemporary entertainers for quite a few years. My guess is that, because Jolson didn't age well as he grew older, keeping the black face appearance kept his audience's mind off the fact that he was a middle-aged man who looked much older without the make up.

Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!

reply

[–] johandav 12 years ago

"You people are all self-centered idiots."

"You people . . . all"????? Literally everybody who's responded to the OP has told him/her that he/she is wrong at best and stupid at worst, usually with good supporting arguments (like the wonderful scene in the church late in the movie showing the dignity of the characters).

Maybe you should read the responses before acting like you're superior to everyone else who's written something.

“Armando Benitez, the human train wreck who always runs on time.”

reply

[–] cbee43 8 years ago

All Jolson was a bigoted idiot, and it figures you people would give him a pass....

reply

[–] stanleybix-1 8 years ago

I think you should read a little more about Al Jolson. Jeni LeGon, actress and famous tap dancer, spoke about working in movies in the 1930's. She said that the white actors were friendly on set, but only Al Jolson and Ruby Keeler invited them to their home. Al Jolson's funeral was attended by more black people than any other white artist.

"Irwin, we're gonna' have to kill him"!

reply

[–] skguy82 12 years ago

Cuz the white folk in that scene were so dignified. One of em had his head stuck in the blinds for cryin out loud.

reply

[–] andrewwjohnson 12 years ago

I wonder how some of these over sensitive souls , on this board, feel about street mimes. LOL

TAG LINE: True genius is a beautiful thing, but ignorance is ugly to the bone.

reply

[–] scottors 11 years ago

yeah horribly racist , especially the scene with the chain gang in the river, when the old guy is handing out water in a ladle and the black guys and the white guys share the same ladle

come on guys , why do some people just love to find things to find offensive

reply

[–] GoUSN 11 years ago

Quelle horreur!

reply

[–] stanleybix-1 9 years ago

It was an actor playing a role! I am quite sure he was happy to be working and earning a paycheck! Too much is made on these boards of racism, and not enough about black actors earning their living!

reply

[–] johnrupertg 11 years ago

What are you all so worried about? In 1950 about 33% of the World Population were white. Today it is about 9%, so why worry?

reply