Black in America 2 Doesn’t Even Touch The Real Story
The second edition of Black in America, “Black in America 2”, on CNN kicked off with a pre-show called “Moment of Truth,” in which several black figure heads talked about those who were inspirational to them.
This pre-show was probably the best part of Black in America 2.
The pre-show coincidentally framed Black in America with a conversation about the situation with Henry Louis Gates, the Harvard professor who was arrested for disorderly conduct because of an erroneous call suggesting someone was breaking into his house, which of course was the home of Professor Gates. The live audience echoed the sentiments of many black folk, who saw that incident as unfair, unjust, and just another symbol of the institutionalized police force continuing to practice either racial profiling or Billie-club law.
And that was about the only thing on CNN that intrigued me last night, as Black in America failed to adequately address a single issue, in-depth, throughout its entire 2-hour documentary.
The Black in America 2 “documentary,” basically told 4 different stories. It started off with the wife of Chris Rock, Malaak Rock, and her organization that provides kids with a trip to South Africa as part of a year-long physiotherapy process to give young, inner-city, Brooklyn kids a perspective on life that will hopefully change their lives. It was a great story, and it would have been perfect for 60 Minutes.
The next story was about a black principal in Hartford, CT who started a charter school for inner-city, black children. Through his direction, hands on participation, and fatherly-like presence at the school, he has managed to get every graduate of his school into a 4-year college upon graduation. That guy proved he could truly work miracles, and this story should have been on CNN Heroes.
Another story on Black in America 2, the first installment of it, was about a privileged kid and his lifestyle. The story started off talking about how said kid was treated negatively by whites and differently by blacks, because of his background and a semi-dual-consciousness, I suppose. It then digressed into a story about the black bourgeoisie, where this woman denied that she excludes people from her events because of their finances, but that she only excludes people if they aren’t “apart of the group.” That’s a great story, but it certainly isn’t one that effects most black people—not yet anyway.
Lastly, they had a story about the founder of Management Leadership for Tomorrow, and how he founded MLT on the premise that there needs to be more black people in boardrooms and business schools. It’s a great premise, and it would have been a great piece in BusinessWeek or Black Enterprise.
So while all of the stories in Black in America 2 were quite interesting, none of them were complete, none of them explained any dilemmas, and none of them spoke to underlying issues in the systems that continue to negatively affect the black race here in America.
If you’re going to tell a bunch of stories, then put them in news magazine shows, such as 60 Minutes and 20/20, and make them the feature stories they are supposed to be. However, if you’re going to make a documentary claiming to tell the story of “Blacks in America,” then be a documentary, not just a emotional tug boat.
A documentary is life told in story form. A documentary should have a “beginning” and an “end,” even if they are the same thing. But it can’t be a flat line, full of stories after stories, more or less pointing to the same problem, which is what Black in America 2’s first installment was.
Dziga Vertov says a documentary is “life as it is.” Pare Lorentz says it’s a factual film that’s dramatic.” I say a good documentary is like a good movie; it has an underlying meaning, it takes that meaning head on, and it is has no choice but to face that meaning before the movie is over.
Black in America 2 has done none of that thus far. Even in trying to tell “life as it is,” it failed to look into reasons as to why some of its most appropriate leads in the story are who they are. Yes, the show documented successful black leaders and the people that followed, but the show didn’t talk about where these people lived and how where they lived effected them. The show presented us with generic cases, which I understand are easier to find, but if that’s the case, and the producers could only get the people they got, then why not dig deeper? Why not explore into why there are so many people who fit into one fledgling category?
Black in America 2 needed to look less into where some people are going, and more into the journey it takes to get there, and why some people make it, and why some people do not. In discussing the principal and the charter school, the show didn’t come across students who weren’t graduating, nor did it look at any students who have already graduated and how they’re doing. Nor did the show look into the backgrounds of students who were new to school. The whole thing, while incredibly touching, had the depth of a 7th grade yearbook feature, and I expect more from a year-long project from the best television news source in the business .
What Black in America fails to do is talk about the journey. The show is so predicated on not burying the lead, and keeping the prominent black faces in front of the camera, that the show does not show the systems, people (both black and white), and entities holding back blacks in America.
I’m sure the ratings will warrant a Black in America 3, because I will watch it, if not only for the great discussions that I derive from it, but also for an insight into how the rest of America perceives Blacks in America. But in the future, I hope Soledad O’Brien will tell the story of how black people get from one place to the next, how they got there, what held them back, what pushed them forward, and what is or is not keeping them there. And that could be the story of a grad school professor or a high school drop-out, but it must be the complete story in order for people to really know what it’s like to be Black in America.
Earlier, I said that a good documentary is like a good movie. And to further my point, a good movie isn’t just about the story, but it’s about the characters, both the protagonist and antagonist. Those people make the movie, so their characters, their backgrounds, their stories must be divulged to the rest of the audience. And when that doesn’t happen, you don’t have a good movie; you don’t have Titanic, Batman Returns or Citizen Kane, you just have Bruno. No more Bruno, Soledad…please!
Leave a Reply