White Man's Burden

It is JUST a movie!!! geez... you all are giving this movie too much power. It is meant to ENTERTAIN. The movie's soul purpose was to illustrate many popular stereotypes. Any mature audience would recognize that it was only meant to do this and NOT to properly represent either role for the sake of being politically correct. However, it is apparent that many of you find it offensive or brutal because you feel that "your race" was being misrepresented. Speaking as an African American female, I understood that this movie was ONLY meant to open my eyes to society's view of race roles of blacks and whites in America. Sure black people dont walk around with duck-tape on their jackets (as in the scene with the thugs at the restaurant) and little black girls do not have easy access to a revolver that they are permitted to use in the case of an emergency (as in the scene where Belafonte's character hid in a white person's home for safety) and LORD KNOWS a white man will NEVER bring a black girl home to meet his family. *haha* --kiddin'. ("disturbing" comment, huh?)

Well anyways, I think the movie was good for rousing up these feelings of disturbance, however it lost me when the whole kidnapping took place. It became the focal point of the movie and confused many of its viewers. Other than that, the movie was ok. I give it a 8 on a scale from 1 to 10, only because I have never seen such a bold attempt to deal with race roles as this one. Therefore, I enjoyed the movie.

I appreciate when a movie tries to break the conceptions of the audience. This shows that someone is trying to be smart and use the medium to express their own heartfelt views as well as entertain. Yet this movie has a serious problem: it tries to show a mirror world in which the roles of whites and blacks are reversed in order to show the injustice. Yet this movie doesn't have the sense to realize that when you use a stereotype in order to break it, you end up enforcing it. Travolta's character in this movie is not just your bog standard black man, it's representative of whites in the same class strata. Yes, there are white people who act just like he does in this movie. This is not behavior that is reserved solely for black people. And yet this is supposed to be an Alternate America?

Nonsense.

This movie is misinformed racewise. There are plenty of rich blacks and poor whites in this world. Turn it on Cops or any talk show and you'll see proof of the latter. To give us a morality play with the intent to shock us with things a lot of us in middle America see on a daily basis is lazy conception.

The movie fails on this level. Perhaps if it gave more thought to the classes instead of just using the race card (and actually looking more into their topic) it would be a good movie. But now, it's just a forgotten piece of tripe with a very limited and selectively cynical view of the world. And the world is lesser for it.

I expected good things from this film as I tend to admire directors and screenwriters who take a visually arresting premise and manipulate it in order to prompt self reflection in the audience (The Elephant Man for example). In addition, I am a big fan of Travolta and the role seemed an artistically sound one for him to undertake. Initially, the widespread symbolism is interesting and inventive, yet becomes overbearing relatively quickly, and to me it seemed that the director underestimated his audience's perception and continually rammed home his point with the subtlety of Dolph Lundgren.

The film ultimately left me frustrated because I thought the idea was a good one but the story simply wasn't multi-faceted enough to be engaging. Aside from the characters played by Travolta and Belafonte, most of the supporting cast was very underwritten, particularly the families of both men. However, the performances were very good, and I thought Belafonte conveyed the defeatism and inherent arrogance of his role particularly well.

Overall though, I thought this was pseudo-art: it masqueraded as a deep and meaningful examination of the social relevance of race, but ended up as a very simplistic story disguised by delusions of self worth.

5/10

I didnt know anything about the movie when it was sent on Danish television, and to begin with I found it quite surprising; it made me think a lot. -A great way of describing the social problems in the USA. The only problem with the movie was that it lasted for more than half an hour; after that it was just a cliche of a movie..very predictable. Its obvious that the movie was produced basically because of the good concept. Then suddenly they had to write a script too, and they simply forgot to be original, resulting in a story which is lousy even compared to television.

Alternative history is certainly one of the more compelling aspects of speculative fiction . Anyone who has seen the DOCTOR WHO story Inferno would be hard pressed to forget it , Robert Harris's Fatherland is a unforgettable novel and whilst I have no wish to read any of his books Harry Turtledove is a very popular author . In short premises featuring alternative planet Earths' and their different histories are thought provoking to say the least and when it was announced that John Travolta ( Let's not forget how massive a star he was then after PULP FICTION ) was going to be starring in an alternative future film where the roles of black and white are reversed the studio execs would have quite rightly tapped themselves on their shoulders knowing they were making a massive hit

Strangely I'd forgotten all about this movie until it was broadcast on BBC1 a couple of nights ago and it's not difficult to understand why it's an obscure flop . The film starts with a black family gathered at the dinner table where patriarch and businessman Thaddues Thomas states his dislike for white people and their problems . Cut to Louis Pinnock who who works for Thomas company and lives in a rough area where his neighbours all seem to be pecker woods . Later due to a series of contrived , not very well written circumstances Pinnock loses his job with the company and decides to kidnap Thomas

The problem with WHITE MANS BURDEN is that this is an alternative world where Black Americans are at the apex of social hierarchy while whites are at the bottom bu this scenario is never ever explored . In fact the only things were shown that things are so mightily different is when someone is flipping the TV channel that show amongst other things a western where all the calvarymen are black . I know this was made in 1995 but is director Desmond Nakano saying there's no white equivalent of Morgan Freeman , Condaleeza Rice or Colin Powell ? For goodness sake we're even shown a black golfer on TV . Is this version of America without a white golfing prodigy called Alpine Woods ?

So that's the main problem and an unforgivable one where we're told that everything is different but as the plot rolls along we find ourselves asking what is actually different ? The audience are shown a couple of black cops being confronted by an angry white mob ( This doesn't happen in " our " America ? ) , a white man with a black companion are threatened by pecker woods ( This doesn't happen in " our " America ? ) etc , etc . At no point is the premise used to explore how anything would be different in " our " America . If you made a film set in " our " America where a disgruntled white employee kidnaps his racist black boss then you would not have to alter one single word never a single scene from this screenplay . And disgruntled employees kidnapping nasty employer type redemption plots we never all that compelling in the first place