I begin this critique of the movie, Wakanda Forever, by first asking a few critical questions:
1. Is the movie merely another cinematic blockbuster from the Disney/Hollywood "dream
machine"; pipeline, with no significance outside of producing a few more fleeting
celebrities and a handsome profit for a handful of financial investors?
2. Is it ALL of the above, PLUS an intentional, or unintentional, attempt to divert a
reemerging black liberation movement, and its real and potential allies, from a much-
needed understanding of the intersections of class systems, international relationships
and geopolitics?
3. Does, or will Wakanda Forever have the potential to reach, and influence a broad mass
of the movie and video-viewing public? (After its first week it grossed over 500 million
dollars!)
If the answer to the 1st question is NO, and MAYBE to #2, and a resounding YES to #3, then
the task is clear:
Wakanda, like so many other things, must face what Karl Marx called "the weapon of
criticism";
The plot: . . .As the nation of Wakanda buries their former leader, T’Challa, in an impressive,
high-tech, airborn funeral, global imperialists ( who look like the actual ones) are searching the
waters off the coast of Wakanda for the supernatural resource called vibranium. Utilizing a
vibranium detector, invented by an young, African American MIT student, Riri Williams, they
come under a devastating attack, which kills all of them.
At a subsequent special emergency session of the U.N., Wakanda is accused of the assault.
Meanwhile, as Wakanda Queen Ramonda and her daughter, Princess Shuri, gather at a beach,
seeking closure after T’Challa’s death they are confronted by Namor, the leader of the
underwater nation, Tolakan. He reveals to the Wakandan ‘royals’ that it was his forces which
attacked the intelopers, in order to protect their supply of vibranium. Since only Tolakan and
Wakanda possess the valuable resource, coveted by other nation states, Namor proposes an
alliance between their two countries.
The Wakandans reject the offer.
Instead, Princess Shuri and Okoye, head of the Dora Milaje, Wakanda’s all-female defense
force, contact C.I.A. agent, Everette Ross (from the 1st movie), and request his assistance in
locating the inventor of the vibranium detector.
After finding the inventor at a garage lab in Massachusetts, Ruri and the two Wakandan women,
are followed by the F.B.I. They elude capture, only to be confronted by Namor, and his fellow
Tolakan, Attuma, who insist that the inventor be turned over to them. The women refuse. A brief
skirmish ensues, ending with both the Princess and Williams, taken prisoner by the Tolakans.
Namor demands that Wakanda “form the alliance or Shuri dies.”. . .
Afaics, the plot of Wakanda Forever does not deviate much from what we usually expect from
contemporary Hollywood sci-fi and fantasy fare. Consistent with the tradition of action-hero
films, the producers have capitalized on the spectacular financial, and overall critical success of
the original film, Black Panther. What they’ve apparently discovered is that they could
repeatedly score another big ‘hit’ by: 1) casting black women in most of the leading roles, and
2) invoking reallife, popular, political heroes, i.e., the now defunct Black Panther Party.
And what about the characters, and performances?
Overall, decent on both counts.
Arguably, the Namor character, played by Tenoch Huerta is the most interesting new character
in the sequel. Being capable of breathing in & outside of water, unlike his fellow Tolakans, and
able to fly on winged feet, like the others, Namor is a worthy antagonist. The motley collection
of personalities in the Wakandan ruling class continue to be visually riveting, clad in outfits
which would make the musical group Earth, Wind and Fire jealous (Those clothes will, no doubt,
be available soon at your local "Black Buying Power is Black Power" boutique, at exorbitant
prices!)
The writer and executive producer, Ryan Coogler said that meticulous research went into
recreating authentic African cultures, languages and accents. The African American inventor,
played with just the right amount of ‘ghetto’ swag, by Dominique Thorne, shows us, once again,
along with Princess Shuri, that there are always grassroots intellectuals in our midst, even if
they are, as in the case of Riri, using their intellect to make a quick buck. Letitia Wright, , as the
princess , gives the best performance, imo, although her constant grieving over and tearful
recollections of her brother are often a bit much.
The overall production has enough razzle-dazzle, graphic fight scenes and special effects to
rival the best science fiction flicks ever done in Hollywood. The soundtrack certainly does not
disappoint, featuring music by Kendrick Lamar and Rihanna, all tied together with a
symphonic score by Ludwig Goransson.
And what about the themes being raised in Wakanda, i.e., what is being said, NOT said and/or
should have been said?
If we recognize that virtually ALL things in life are, subjectively or objectively, political - involving
real and imagined power struggles - movies, entertainment, art PERIOD are political. That
means there is a political bent in Wakanda, explicit or implicit. Of course, the plot itself raises
several political questions:
- Is solidarity, with other oppressed communities and nations important in a world still
dominated by superpower intrigues, interventions and invasions?
- What’s the relationship, and contradiction, between nationalism and internationalism?
- Although the original comic book strip characterized Wakanda as a monarchy, why does
a 21st century film cast it as one? Has there ever been an egalitarian monarchy?
- What’s the difference between personal politics and public politics, and which one
should take precedence over the other?
RE: solidarity of the oppressed; it has always been problemattic, and fraught with seemingly
irreconcilable contradictions, particularly when we look at North American history. . . One would
think, for instance, that unity between besieged indigenous communities and enslaved Africans
would have been automattic; a no-brainer. Not only have we been, collectively, the most
oppressed people under colonial capitalist rule, white supremacy and nationalism emerged as
justifications for exploiting BOTH groups. Afterall, land which was taken from indigenous
communities primarily for the purpose, after the 17th century, of expanding chattel slavery..
However, with the outbreak of the Civil War, things became more complex, alliances more
complicated, if they could occur at all. For the enslaved, the mission was relatively clear at that
moment: the slavocrats, holding the lash and treating us like beasts of burden and real estate,
were - and had always been - the “clear and present danger”, the enemy.
Thus, Blacks supported the Union forces in their fight against them.
Otoh, from the perspective of most indigenous people, it was the Union, not the Confederacy,
which was THEIR main enemy. Most of those nations, therefore, supported the Confederate
forces, with the intention of weakening, even defeating the Union, in the interest of curtailing the
westward expansion and continued theft of lands they occupied. (The last Confederate general
to surrender was . . .an Indian!)
Could ANY kind of real alliance have developed in light of those contradictions?
According to Professor Gerald Horne, at the ‘end’ of the Civil War, U.S. ruling class policy could
be described, among other ways, as analogous to “two trains going in opposite directions”: 1)
containing, if not eliminating, the defeated, though unrepentant Confederate insurgency, which
had devastated the South and been, in the final analysis, responsible for the deaths of over 90
thousand people 2) ‘winning the West’, i.e., finishing off the indigenes on the western plains.
Quiet-as-its kept, after the war, black “Buffalo Soldiers” helped the Union do it it.
Shame on us!
Nonetheless,, as Frederick Engels reminded us, there are (antagonistic and nonantagonistic,
major and minor) contradictions in ALL social, and natural, phenomena, which must be
recognized, understood and, if possible, resolved.
One of the most disturbing aspects of both Wakanda films - perhaps, originating in the comic
strip - is its implicit, if not explicit, promotion of nationalism; the idea that this artificial social
division, drawn on maps by victorious pirates and colonialists, enforced by armed border
patrols, and called, a ‘nation’, is still some precious and desirable social configuration (after the
‘family’ or clan). (This is not to deny the need for governing bodies, or states, on various levels).
When we look at the history of nations, however, and the nationalist movements which drive
them on practically every continent, we find a record of incessant warfare and constant social
conflict and contention over vital resources and means of production. On a finite planet, this
seems like, ultimately, a recipe for global disaster.
Maybe that’s why we’re presently staring catastrophic climate change and mass extinction and
nuclear holocaust in the face).
Afaics, nationalism, more often than not, obscures class struggle; the only partially hidden
bottom line.
What class does war benefit?
Can we imagine (like John Lennon),NO nations?
The ORIGINAL, historical Black Panthers could.
Not only that, we began to clearly see the inherent limitations and pitfalls of black nationalism.
Although begun by African Americans who saw themselves continuing the black nationalism of
Malcolm X - post-Nation of Islam - in a few short years the BPP had consciously moved AWAY
from that political orientation. For instance, in a speech , delivered in February, 1971, Huey P.
Newton, chief theoretician of the BPP made the following assertion:
“. . .Kwame Nkrumah had seen that a functional definition of the economic and political situation
in Africa defied the notion of separate, independent nations within the continent. He had seen
that within the African nation-ranks, black men had risen to leadership of ‘independent’ states
who were no more than comprador* agents for the United States.” (1)
And, in 1972, Newton wrote:
“. . . What, then, do the words ‘black nationalism’ concretely mean? Not forming anything
resembling a nation presently, shall U.S. blacks somehow seize, or possibly be ‘given’ land and
expect to claim sovereignty as a nation? In the face of the existent power of the U.S., over the
entire world, such a notion could only be fantasy that could lead to the extinction of a race.” (2)
Agree, or disagree with Huey, the above are expressions of the BPP position on black
nationalism in the 1970s.
And back to fantasy, again. . . why do we discern, in both Black Panther movies, that despite a
few charitable deeds, Wakandans,happily cloistered in their African ‘Shangri-La, seem to have
little to no concern for ANY other oppressed people, inside or outside of its own country?
Also, even as some important citizens of Wakanda make regular reference to a ‘colonizer, ’
there doesn’t seem to be much recognition of a REAL colonizing, superpower, to defend
against nor oppose; only one to make clandestine ‘deals’ with. . .through agents. . .on the C.I.A.
payroll.
Namor was right.
“Let’s unite against a common enemy, who seek to control our vital resource: vibranium.
This is the key to our continued freedom.“ he declares, in no uncertain terms.
Of course, it can be said that after hundreds of people are killed, on both sides, Wakandans
finally, see the 'light’, of solidarity.
And, at the risk of being a ‘spoiler’ - for those who have yet to see the movie - why are
personal politics always valued higher than public politics in most Hollywood movies?
At the end of the day, is the murder of a member of the monarch’s family worth the deaths of
hundreds of the ‘adversary’ AND your own people?
(We should NOT dismiss the importance of protecting and preserving the lives of loved ones,
but, at ALL costs?)
What is the price of revenge?
Should it be, as Shakespeare told us, at best, “a meal served cold?”
Or not at all?
Wakanda raises more questions than answers and the answers are way too few.
Nevertheless, during an interview on NPR's, All Things Considered, Ryan Coogler, said that
after the untimely death of Chadwick Boseman :
“. . . we were just trying to figure out a way forward, you know, that we could all get behind - we
built a story around the characters that were left. And the characters that were left just
happened to be these women. And they were women that we knew well from writing them
before, but, you know, we wanted to show them in a time of transition. And then it became very
clear to us that we were making a film about a Black mother and Black daughter. And we got
excited about that, this idea of making a big, four-quadrant superhero film about a mom and a
daughter.”
So, is that really, at the end of the ‘fray’, what it’s all about, bro???
Well, on a scale of 1 to 10, I’d give Wakanda Forever a 4. . .and some change.
1. The Huey P. Newton Reader, Edited by David Hilliard and Donald Weise, pg. 268
2. Ibid, pgs. 268-269
*Native agents or partners of foreign investors
No comments:
Post a Comment