MovieChat Forums > Spork (2011) Discussion > Disturbingly biased/prejudiced

Disturbingly biased/prejudiced

posted 12 years ago by Bobby Briggs Briganza
4 replies | jump to latest

My honest, subjective reaction while watching this, as it went on, was confusion as it seemed to espouse a regular bias in a certain "direction." Yes, that's vague, and the easiest way I can put it in more concrete terms is it felt like it were coming from the brain of 30-something lesbian. (!!) Let me explain. I would not be so foolish to say that all (or even most) lesbian think/view the world in this way. But there are a quite a few (i.e. that I know, that I've observed) who share this very distinct worldview. (It's like how perhaps very few gay men have 'the gay accent', and yet it's fair to say that there is definitely something which, for lack of better terms, can be called the gay accent.)

The interest in challenging gender stereotypes and roles was there (major theme). I'm down with that. And though I'd include that as part of the quasi "30-something lesbian worldview," it's just a strong interest not a bias per se. Cool.

But then you have the portrayal of characters and heavy communication of certain values. Chief among these is the portrayal of Black people as the purveyors of everything cool and of value. Of course, these characters are also all portrayed as MTV stereotypes of Black people. All the White people are pathetic (unless they can imitate Black people, or they can do something really ironic [eg from the past] that is so uncool that it's cool). Blondes are evil and shallow as hell. 12 year old kids are sexualized because it's "cute." Oh yeah, and the Black musical culture that is accepted is like some kind of Salt 'n' Peppa thing... ironically out of fashion, but safely far aware from the values in much other Black music.

There are a lot of other things, subtle in the movie, that reflect what seem to be the commonly accepted "OK" views/values among lesbians of a certain age. Overall though, it's the attitude that it's ok to be selectively prejudiced...

The movie is definitely for adults. It doesn't teach a lesson to kids; kids should not be brainwashed with this, even if the main theme is admirable. I think it is meant to resonate with the worldview of another specific audience: gay younger adults who are in that throwback/hipster-y kind of phase.

I wasn't too surprised then, to find then that the director was a 30-something gay man. Score one for the power of stereotypes.

Chili-P (It's my signature, yo.)

[–] Damian_Williams 12 years ago

Well, black pp ARE the purveyors of everything cool. This country is built and is maintained by the culture of African Americans. Everything that is ever considered cool in this country, and in most parts of the world, its usually slang, styles, mannerisms, etc that African Americans have started. Although some of the black children in this film can be seen as sterotypical, I tried to keep an open mind and see it as an experience that the writer may have had. And quiet as its kept, there are black ppl, those living in inner cities, that use the vernacular of tho=e girls in this film.

Most "pretty, popular blonds" in school are usually evil. Of course not all, but the "pretty" ones that are born receiving everything because they are born with society standards of beauty will typically be royal *beep* in school, especially to the gay,misunderstood students, and sometimes, non white population who may no directly fit in.

My only problem with the film wasn't perceived sterotypes of language and/or behavior, it was Magical Negro aspect of the film. The whole: "Hey black ppl lets help the white girl succeed and win the dance competition" blah blah that moves serves us in the name of "diversity" or showing an interracial friendship. But once again, I kept an open mind.

I'm a gay 29 adult and I enjoyed the film for what it was...a LOGO special. The end.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rboone-499-667407 12 years ago

This movie is not meant to be an anthropological field study/documentary. It has a certain childlike fantasy mixed in with a 30-something cynicism. It is a queer film that queer people would probably, not be offended by. I know a few queer friends who grew up in Lodi, Ca and told me in high school the "black kids" were the coolest kids they knew. So there it is. Also I was taken back by how much slang the black girls used coming from a rural area. Then I met some black people in Austin, Texas and realized that black people have dialects and slang no matter if rural or urban or suburban,etc. I also know plenty of black people with mainstream speech, but "slang" is just a way of relating to each other. I like how Spork doesn't overexplain the big brother "Spit" and doesn't paint him as a bad guy.

There are more than just grown lesbians who think black people are cool. For comedic satire and quasi-musicals you need extreme characters that an audience can name/recignize in 2 seconds. You have "Chunk" the fat asian bully-repeller, who by the way is not Sporks only savior. Spork has her brother, her dead mother, Chunk, and her small Caucasian boyfirend as saviors as well. This movie was meant to be biased and tell a story through "Sporks" eyes. It did not really make being a hermaphrodite a grotesque thing. There was more deeper messages about socioeconomic status and religion and self-acceptance.

[–] filmchaser 11 years ago

The film is about being different. You can pick it apart, but the film basically presented two different powerful cliques at the school: the white girls and the black girls. The "fringe" were Spork, her little white boy admirer, and Chunk the very large Asian boy. The dynamics between the two power groups and the fringe were typical: one tries to compete with the other, and the fringe is just looking for a place to belong for protection. It really doesn't matter what the sexual orientation is of the people who made the movie, and to second guess that is pointless and distracts from the story in front of you. The actors were mostly child actors who did a great job of playing their characters with depth and emotion that children of their ages may or may not have ever felt. So they had to ACT. That's what was impressive to me. And the actress that played Tootsie Roll, Sydney Park, is as funny as an adult stand up comic I've ever seen.
Tootsie Roll and her entourage were far more colorful and interesting than the mean white girls, not because they were a stereotype, but because they enjoyed dancing as having fun, just like they enjoyed the game of jump roping because they are little girls and that's what little girls do. SPORK, a mean spirited label derivation of "Spaz and Dork," was just a miserable little outcast without anyone to comfort or reassure her except her brother Spit who wasn't very good at all that feeling stuff. So it makes sense to me that Spork would be accepted by someone else who was considered different: her friendly little black neighbor, and the fringe. If this film had been set in the 60's, then you would've seen the mean black girls as the bullies and the white girls as the outsiders. Either way, there would still be the "fringe," so that's really the point, isn't it? How destructive the groupthink is to originality? Conforming vs. being different?
I don't care if a dog wrote and directed it, it doesn't add or subtract from the message of the story.