Black Panther is a Good Movie. Full Stop. · 3:16pm Mar 3rd, 2018
This blog went up on Wholesome Rage a while ago. It references me, in an article I gave writer and blog admin Ross James permission to repost. At the time of it going up, I hadn't actually seen Black Panther yet. I just saw Black Panther.
I'm going to be frank: the wholesome rage article on Black Panther is a pretty spicy hot take or a really nitpicky cinematic critique of an alright movie, depending on which portion of the article you give more weight to. I have no background in cinematic production, so I don't have a ton to say about James's critiques of the action scenes (even if I think his article picks examples that fail to showcase the film's strongest action points and most of his criticisms apply to multiple movies in the Marvel blockbuster style). I also don't have a ton of problems with smaller elements in his review. Instead, I disagree with the angle he's decided to approach his criticism from, because:
1) Narratively speaking, the movie ranges from "fine" to "really good".
2) Thematically speaking, the movie has something to say.
3) Literally both of these are in part beside the point because Black Panther is just a very typical marvel blockbuster, and it's kind of important that it is.
Let's get this out of the way right off the bat: first, I don't think Jamesis a bad critic. I think he's a perpetual nitpicker who will not ever let the good exist when things could be The Perfect. This is a great way to live your life as a human being and a terrible way to watch Marvel superhero movies, which are almost always less-interesting versions of more ambitious genre films that sacrifice that ambition for the sake of mass appeal and audience identification. I don't even completely disagree with some of his criticisms of the film's narrative or thematic elements. In both cases they weren't perfect.
That said, the pushback here is so disproportionate that I'm a little embarrassed he referenced me at all.
James's first major breakdown of the story involves examining.... whether a superhero movie should, in fact, be about a superhero?
It’s a super interesting practice that’s consistent across so many different cultures.
In Wakanda, the king is the guy who can defeat anyone in single combat without superpowers. Then they give him and only him superpowers.
This is deemed a good thing.
So first of all, if you watched Black Panther and your response to the challenge is "this is considered a good thing", I'm sorry did you miss the entire second act where this practice actually almost results in Wakanda experiencing a violent coup and nearly morphing into an arms supplier for massive global networks of revolutions meant to destabilize every major nation? The film is clearly critical of this practice, as it is many things about Wakanda. The entire film is framed around Wakanda as a nation inadvertently creating Killmonger because of its stupidity.
Shit, the Jabari people being systematically screwed is even a point the movie revisits later.
Second of all, this is really a cultural criticism of individualism vs. collectivism stapled to a critique of the film. While that's maybe a fair critique of Black Panther's worldview, that worldview is a product of the fact that this is a superhero story. Almost all western superhero stories are by their nature about glorifying the power of the individual to make a change. That's the entire reasoning behind the concept of a "superhero". While it's fair to critique that, it's more appropriate to take a wide lens to that critique than blame a specific film for propagating it, because it's a trend that repeats across the entire genre.
The thing is, Black Panther isn’t motivated by the idea of being a hero. He’s motivated by being protector of Wakanda. And, like… Not killing this guy goes against a lot of that. It sort of undermines the character, honestly. Especially since it’s kind of implied Ulysses is being brought back to Wakanda for execution, anyway.
Later in, James argues that this undermines the character. James is also, apparently, Killmonger.
I'm half-joking, but the entire point of the film is that T'challa isn't a killer, and seeing him kill Klaue would actually undermine that. Someone in the film at one point literally say the words "Wakanda doesn't need a warrior". The entire story is about setting him up as a man with the power to become king who uses that power towards peaceful ends as an alternative to Killmonger, who can only think of power in terms of subjugation and conquering. James eventually circles back to talking about this in his conclusions about Black Panther's philosophy, but I hardly think it's consistent with the point he makes here.
To be honest most of the other story critiques James leverages are in support of three things: 1) that the film unnecessarily builds up specific characters over showing a realistic society, and 2) that in doing so it creates the unchallenged idea of benevolent dictatorship as the best form of government 3) and also plays into a race-swapped version of The White Man's Burden.
Apparently the fact that Wakanda might be a flexible stand in for any elevated black people capable of using that wealth to uplift communities wasn't a reading he considered in that last bit, but okay, that's fair. I don't even think his reading of the philosophy is wrong, necessarily. The film is a story about monarchy, coming of age, and the responsibilities of ruling a nation as much as it is a superhero film. Where I take umbrage with the Wholesome Rage article is that almost every criticism it fires at Black Panther in particular are broad criticisms that apply to basically everything else in the genre.
Like, yes, there's a benevolent dictatorship thing going on there, but The Lion King had that too. Yes, it's reductive and power fantasy-ish, but Shuri is literally playing Q to T'challa's James Bond in act one - like seriously that scene was basically an update of a Bond scene- and serves another purpose I'll get to in a moment. The specialness and omni-capableness of the individual is part and parcel with the superhero genre, and it dovetails nicely with themes of strong, good royalty. The film has T'challa literally criticize the traditional stance of rulers past multiple times as it reaches the climax, and deals with the fallout of their decisions, so it's not even that uncritical of monarchy.
That's not to say you can't criticize the film for falling into that, but more that in this case the discourse is really weirdly pigeonholed and less useful because it's being used to criticize one film that's a product of years of these storytelling trends in particular, and not taking a wider look at why it's inherited these trends.
The last point I'm going to make is that in the end, for better and for worse, this is a typical Marvel superhero movie about omnicompetent cool people who save the day.
And that's a good thing.
There's this story I have in my favorites list . I don't know if this story is good. I honestly can't tell you if it was or not, because to me it was less important that it be good and more that it's an indulgent power fantasy about a queer, trans character who goes on a pulp fantasy journey and gets a pretty over-powered-special-fantasy-protagonist arc. And I'm really glad that it exists. Having that character gave me something to fantasize about when I feel powerless, or angry, or like my voice doesn't matter. Minorities don't get characters like this very often in mainstream media. When we do, it's often as side characters in larger stories, or token voices in 'diverse' casts.
How fucking crazy is it that here in 2018 for so far as I can tell the first time in major motion picture history, we have a massive box-office pulp fantasy superhero film that is a very typical superhero film where the themes are colonization vs. uplift, the overwhelming majority of the cast is black actors, and the story is structured specifically to give power fantasy role models to black kids. That's why Shuri is the science architect. That's why Okonye gets the coolest action scenes. That's why Nakia gets almost as much focus as T'Challa. That's why the film is so important. And not discussing that or at least admitting it should be part of the discussion is missing the point of why this movie is being so positively received.
This is a breakthrough moment for a community and a breakthrough moment for genre film in general, because for the first time since ever we have a superhero defined by afro-futurism aesthetically and rooted in ideas about uplift and unity that seem to be resonating pretty well with the community he was designed to stand for.
Look I don't want to sit here speaking for Black America, I'm not black. But from where I stand, the fact that my manager's five year old kid gets to look at T'Challa and be inspired by him is worth a movie that bores people who don't like Marvel's films all that much to begin with. This film is doing way more good than harm.
But hey, hot take it away, y'all. I said to examine your escapist media. I didn't say you had to dunk on a film for being escapist.
EDIT: If you want critical takes on Black Panther that discuss the film in ways that I think do helpfully contribute to discourse, the effervescent and literally perfect Bookish Delight directed me to some here, here, and here that are not only better at talking about what the film inherits from Marvel but also more biting, specific criticisms (and praise).
Interesting points.
It's a great hat to put on when you need to, like when you're creating something. But living your life with that hat on all the time sounds like a surefire way to spend your entire life hating everything, and that sounds miserable.
Its a fun movie thats really all that matters to me personally.
To the ones who it inspires or such, good.
They uplift their own community, at the expense and suffering of the ones around them. So like any nation. Im still quiet amazed how nationalists of any kind can "come together" and celebrate this movie heh.
Critic should also consider that this whole situation was basically set up by Stan Lee in the mid-to-late 1960s. I haven't seen the movie yet, but from what I understand the movie is fairly faithful to the original concept from Marvel Comics.
Indeed my main gripe with many of the reviews, both favorable and unfavorable, of this movie is that they're talking as if this is some new concept. Everything -- the Schizo Tech mixture of traditional African culture and Crystal Spires and Togas ultratech; the extreme parochial nationalism; the royal gladitorial combat; and T'Challa's basic personality: all this comes from the comic books from the 1960s through 1990s.
It's always nice to see a comic book superhero concept translated well onto the big screen, but haling this as something incredibly new and original rather misses the point: the real achievement seems to be that they translated it well from the original comic books.
Thank you for this!
Lately the nit-picking approach some people take to movies, and particularly the weird nit-picking that will totally call out movie-to-movie continuity errors and get all twisted up about them and yet seems to not even be aware of the existences of genres, trends, cultures, etc. and only brings up tropes to go "this uses an old trope, therefore its bad!" but doesn't seem to actually get what tropes are or why they're used just drives me bananas. It's this weird pseudo-intellectualism that refuses to study or even admit to the validity of whole swathes of sociological knowledge while claiming to be intelligent and educated and it really annoys the snot out of me sometimes.
(I say this having not read the critique you're responding to specifically, so I have no idea if it is actually performing the same kind of bizarre ignorant-intellectual snobbery, but it's something I've seen vast amounts of recently, especially as relates to people who hated the most recent Star Wars, and this seems to smell of the same kind of thing.)
Also, I append a paraphrase of an amusing exchange I saw the other day about the movie:
Racist Nitwit: Imagine how all those SJWs would be up in arms and screaming if somebody made a superhero movie about a hidden scandanavian nation that was more advanced than the rest of the world and had a white superhero leader! (Something, something, everyone's anti-white, yadda, yadda.)
Other guy: Thor. You're describing Thor.
4809020 Glad I'm not the only one who's noticed that pattern of late.
Also ... yeah, that is very much Thor. What even ...
So much "criticism" around Black Panther is either badly overthinking the film, or is coming from a somewhat racist place, or says more about the critic than the film.
At it's base, it's a superhero film, and really nothing more. The story is a bog-standard Marvel superhero story, combined with a trials/triumph of the True King narrative. Overall it's fairly shallow in both the world and characters, and I found it eminently predictable the entire way through. And that's not actually a bad thing.. It was very pleasant escapist fantasy, the sort that for far too long has been relegated to white-dominated casts and settings. It was a fun, popcorn film, and it was decidedly black, which sets it far apart from the mainstream in an age when whitewashing stories is still a pervasive problem.
And everything else about it was beautiful. Not in the typically westernized Hollywood, Halle Berry, Tyra Banks, fitting-in-to-white-society kind of way; but in a profoundly African way. I love that nearly every one of the major actors in the film were either from Africa, or are first-generation children of African immigrant. The costuming and designs were absolutely gorgeous, and the characters were incredibly good-looking, moreso than even most superhero characters IMO.
The cinematography was also stunning. Not quite Lord of the Rings stunning, but it is certainly in the same category. And at a time when the overwhelming majority of blockbuster type films are very America-dominated, I love that this was set predominantly in Africa, with very little American presence.
On its own, it's an 8 out of 10 movie. With Civil War in the mix, it's a 7 out of 10 because it leaves me wondering how T'Challa managed to get Black Panther powers and how his father even died from the explosion if the Black Panther, as demonstrated twice in the movie, has fairly rapid regeneration abilities.
As for the social commentary on the movie-- I feel like the director knew what he was doing. Killmonger was my most hated character ever. He pretty much represents the extreme left militants like many BLM groups and Antifa as well as privileged, but delusional Blacks like that kid from Mizzou. Or Don Lemon. He shows this character to be possibly an intellectual, but one who lacks any empathy and knows no context for the information he is spouting. He's running round screaming "white people, oppressors, colonizers!" While giving no weight to the fact that he is one of the most decorated and elite warriors on the planet under the employ of a billionaire as a merc. He's probably already rich. He had a rough up bringing, but so did 90% of people. We've all got our trials.
The movie quite clearly demonstrates that he is way out of touch with reality in how it was noted that he gets kills as if it were a video and and how his father, who watches him from the Astral plane is disappointed in how he turned out. His father wasnt mad that the white man dun oppressed him, he was mad that he wasn't there to sooth this young man's rage at being left alone. And that is why I hate Killmonger: he has a hole inside of him full of fire and he wants to let that fire out so that it can burn everything around him.
(And another parallel between Killmonger the extreme left: he gladly exploited the laws of Wakanda while he was getting what he wanted, but as soon as tribal law was called on to challenge him his exact words were "Nah, that challenge shit is dead. He also had them destroy all of the herbs so that no one could challenge him in the future (aka poisoning conversation so that every opinion other than theirs is sexist, racist, etc, etc so that no one can ever disagree in the future without being attacked).)
To see him get his and die was the best part of the movie, because he represents everything I'm trying to get out of my community.
4809046
Man if you think he's an extreme left caricature you're going to hate it when I point out both my partners are anarcho-communists and that Killmonger's big issue isn't his hatred, it's that he internalized US imperialism.
Also he was literally created by the racist bullshit and oppression. He mirrors the oppressor, but that mirroring is something built by the inaction of good people and the actions of colonizers.
Like my god actually reading your post, your take is hotter than the one I just dunked on.
4809068 a couple things:
1) I wasn’t commenting on that blog specifically, I was making a general comment to go along with SPark’s. Simmer down.
2) I read it. I meh’d. I moved on. I made a general comment in reply to a general comment.
Edit: I can’t type on phone =3=
4809053
Why would I hate that? Movies are art and art is interpretation. I don't believe that how we view and analyze the character is mutually exclusive. Why can he not be a far-left extremist caricature while also internalizing the worst of US imperialism?
Can you prove that? From my perspective, he's full of shit. He's the child of a arms dealing, gangster traitor killed by his own brother for being an angry fool. Who knows what troubles he's gone through because of racism, it's never elaborated on. What we do know is, like I said, he is literally one of the most successful soldiers on the planet who likely has a level of worldwide renown and respect. So detail to me what racist bullshit and oppression he suffered from? What hardships did he endure that are the result of him being black and not because his father was a criminal and he was left alone and traumatized.
4809040
African, yes. But it definitely was not a Black film. To say that it is a black film is to imply that Killmonger's plight is a plight of the black community or that Africa is incredibly significant to the black community. It doesn't actually even attempt to touch the problems that are bleeding the black community to death nor does it really have much to do with the black american. Which is fine.
Just because it doesn't end with the absolute monarchy removed and has powerful, sympathetic royal characters doesn't make it praise absolute monarchy.
At least not anymore than a story about a tyrannical absolute monarch replaced by her sister returned from the moon and that sisters new fiance!
4809076
I suspect the people hating on our little exchange there didn't actually read it and think I'm critiquing the Wholesome Rage post. I'm just saying that in general, Scarlet's take on this is a nice breath of fresh air after reading far too many of the kind of takes I'm discussing. My comment has zero to do with the specific thing she's responding to because, as I said, I didn't read it.
4809161 Idk. I thought we kept it pretty general *shrug*
If I might make a polite request?
If you're talking about my fanfiction I'm MrNumbers. But under Wholesome Rage I write as Ross James and I'd like there to be a barrier between the two, even if I advertise it on my blog.
4809118
Killmonger grew up in Oakland. His daddy wasn't the only person he saw die way too young. His father was radicalized by the bullshit he saw in Oakland, and he was only there for a few years with the promise of a home to return to. Killmonger grew up there.
I'm sorry what part of Killmonger wasn't directly implying that his radicalized worldview is the result of real injustice, again?
Like the reason Killmonger isn't the bad guy isn't because he's wrong about how bad oppression is. Nakia and eventually T'challa are presented as alternatives to him: people who share his worldview, but choose to use their power not to mirror oppression but to help people rise above it.
I can! And it was! Because - well, dissecting why it's awesome is a giant long blog unto itself. The short version is it tackles an extremely, extremely ambitious premise of 'How do I take basically every possible cliche pony fanfic trope, and put them all in one story?' and then it does exactly that, and it works.
Granted, I love the hell out of that story, considering I showed it to you, and if you don't remember why it's good you should reread it, girl!
4809445
I mean, don't get me wrong, I like that angle too. But what made me love this story enough to favorite it is the unconventional-power-fantasy angle.
4809473
Oh, that's the part that makes me cry with happy every time I read it, Especially that thing what is far more common in this story relative to other ones
4809436
You didn't demonstrate any racism or oppression. You demonstrated that the hood is the hood and that someone who comes from the closest thing to a utopia on earth was dissatisfied with how people who look like him were getting along at the time. Remember that his father was disappointed in the way Killmonger wanted to do things, even though it was exactly what he was doing; likely because he can see the progress of black america and how his son has held on to hate for and has decided to lash out unjustly against people who have nothing to do with his pain.
That's just edgy shit that extreme-left black millennials relate to. Him saying that was a cover for him being unwilling to accept proper responsibility/ consequences for his actions. Extremely reminiscent of the recent cop killing of a young black who quote "couldn't go to jail", so pulled out a gun and tried to fire on officers instead of just getting patted down, and taking a drug charge.
We literally rolled our eyes when he said that. Killmonger tried to get sympathy points by conflating proper punishment with slavery and bondage.
Well, he is wrong about how bad oppression is but that is a different conversation. T'Challa and Nakia do not share his worldview. That is not what I got from their characters. Yes, they believed that those communities needed help, which is why T'Challa put the outreach center where he did, but he did not attribute their problems to oppression and racism. Honestly, T'Challa himself has the least to say about race out of every character (other than being a far-right nationalist).
If anything, T'Challa, to me, is closer to blacks like Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell who believe that these problems are self-engineered (how he condemns his elders and prior black panthers for cutting Wakanda off from the world and creating problems like Killmonger) and that most of the answers can be found by looking in a mirror first then reaching out to the community. T'Challa is saying that the successful shouldn't leave the failing to rot, regardless of race or nationality (clarified more in his address when stating that Wakanda would no longer hide away).
Regardless, it doesn't feel like a black movie to me because it doesn't address any of the issues that I feel are plaguing the black community. Perhaps it speaks more to the blacks who feel something for their african heritage, or are generationally closer to africa, but it just doesn't come off as black to me.
4809767
Literally created by zoning laws that favored whites, inherited wealth in white communities contributing to a major income gap, and perpetuated by mass incarceration. The hood is literally the result of systems of oppression. If you don't agree with that narrative, then no, you don't get the character at all.
Pretty sure it's because he was about to replicate those systems of oppression on a global scale with new overlords.
What sympathy? He fucking opens his wound and kills himself after saying that. He's so disgusted with the idea of living a prisoner he'd rather die, and yeah, that's tragic and not a moral choice you're supposed to agree with, but it's easy to empathize with.
I feel like it's possible for him to be both 1) completely right about the systems that created him and 2) wrong about how he chooses to respond to them. If you don't agree with that, I feel like you got a stunted, less interesting experience out of Black Panther than I did.
T'challa choosing outreach over revolution isn't him saying oppression and bullshit don't exist, it's him using the power he has to uplift others instead of removing himself from their plight. It's a pretty powerful message, but ultimately T'challa acknowledges that Oakland is something Wakanda has the power to change in a positive way.
The film isn't "racist systems aren't a problem". It's "do we just mirror injustice or do we try to lift people out of it?"
4810479 Or you could actually read SPark's comment in which she openly states that she didn't read Wholesome Rage and makes it painfully clear that it's a general statement. That'd probably give you the context you were looking for.
4809958
I agree that zoning laws contributed to somewhat to the state of the hood, but is nowhere near the largest factor. "Inherited wealth" only affects the one percent, in any real way. The rest of it is indicative of a more intact family. Far fewer blacks lived on the line or in poverty when the black family was strong and intact; crime was also far lower. That segues into the next point. To lower mass incarceration, find a way to lower mass violent crime. 1% of less than 20% of the population shouldn't be responsible for over 50 percent of violent criminal activity in the nation.
And it can't be both, because?
That's easy to empathize with if you are a psycho. Crazy people think they should be able to do whatever they want and not face consequences. That, or a coward. It's called the cowards way out for a reason. And it's only tragic, in my opinion, because he was already successful and respected. All he had to do was be a positive role model and be active in his community. Instead, he squander it, denying people a realistic role model (in universe).
I don't feel bad for him. And I don't feel what he feels, nor am I able to even begin to relate to him.
I agree with that. I just don't believe that he is right.
I never said T'Challa didn't think it exists, I said that T'Challa didn't blame it on racism and oppression. Two entirely different claims. Him seeing Oakland and is a place he can help does not I don't believe the movie is about either of those things. I believe it is about international relations and our responsibility to each other as humans and that the type of anger and hatred Killmonger represented is divisive and destructive.
And there is the magic in the film. I don't think you're wrong, because thus isn't objective, but I don't agree with your analysis of the film.
4810612
Man I wish you'd started with that line so I'd have known I was wasting my time.
Like. You do realize that violent crime is perpetuated by the families broken up by mass incarceration, which is largely a separate issue from violence since it has to do with the harsher sentencing rates imposed on blacks when they commit the same crimes as white -
you know what I'm not even going to bother.
Because your reading leads to a poorer, more shallow, less honest movie. And also really doesn't work with the text as well as I suspect you think it does.
What part of "you're not supposed to agree with his choice" did you miss in my post, or are you just willfully blind?
You aren't supposed to be happy that Killmonger kills himself. You're supposed to think it's a waste. But you're also supposed to understand that, for him, this could have turned out no other way. Killlmonger built himself up as a force of nature lashing out against injustice by perpetuating injustice. He can't exist in a world where that paradigm doesn't work.
See Javert, Les Miserables. This is a trope that's way older than the movie.
All the man wanted was to tear down the system. The only way he saw to do that was, unfortunately, become a new and worse system. That's why he's the bad guy.
Look the film has him literally drop the line "the sun will never set on the Wakandan empire" I don't know how to explain this reading any more clearly.
Sure, and yours is still the spiciest of centrist hot takes. If you don't have anything else to add, then I think we're done here.