Shoot the Messenger

Really, anyone who thinks this film is racist clearly has no capacity to look beyond the blatantly obvious and try to understand the real meaning of this stunning story. The fact that a film maker can be so bold and provocative as to verbalise the issues that are explored, and really go deeper into the race question than just "he's wrong he's right", and that someone can ignore political correctness and risk offending people in order to really get down to the gritty issues behind racism and race stereotyping is a testament to what can be done with film these days. I think that this is an intelligent, important and very brave piece of work, that will undoubtedly incur criticism, but that at the very least will remind people that race IS still an issue and that it requires more thought and understanding than is generally applied to it. I think that this is as cinematically close to Studs Terkel as possible.

it's funny... i've come to the realization that black folks in the UK just weren't ready for Shoot the Messenger. i had a long debate with a black filmmaker when we were both shooting in Ethiopia recently, and i just read the feedback given by the other commenter... i'm sorry, but growing up in Babylon as someone from the African Diapora... we are taught to hate ourselves. period. it's the best way to keep a people dysfunctional in a society that is built to exploit them as a source of cheap labor or preferably as a slave workforce incarcerated in prisons. here in the us... black folks suffer from deep self hatred and confusion of our Afrcan roots... but we can also laugh at it. our films have addressed it lightly... Dave Chapelle has really got into it... Paul Mooney, Richard Pryor.. the list goes on. Shoot the Messenger plays with stereotypes perhaps, but really uses comedy to address the serious issue of self hatred. it's really well written and brilliantly directed. i saw it at the tribeca film festival a few years ago, and have been trying hard to get a copy ever since. there was a lot of outrage in the UK, because folks out there can't deal with their self hatred... sorry, but it's real. i'm dealing with mine everyday. We all need a lot of healing, but if you look at this film for what it is... i think you'll find that it's very well done because it has folks asking themselves important questions about identity, racism, self hatred... i think it's a spark for the kind of self realization that we need to evolve mentally and spiritually. i give it ten stars.

I've seen comments on this movie, which focus on the negative messages sent out by the main character. But Joseph Pascale brilliantly portrayed by David Oyelomo (watch out for this immensely talented actor) is an anti-hero. We as viewers are not supposed to agree with him or his actions. We are only asked to venture on a journey with him.

Yes. Most of what he said is over-the-top and blatantly wrong, but it does forward various touchy issues paint straight at you. You sometimes don't know whether Joseph is wrong or right and this doubt may be a very treacherous thing. The questions asked are treason, but the tingling feeling lingers that not all he said was unfounded.

The movie is beautifully acted and shot with the comedy side giving some relief. The script-writing (irrespective if you find the movie repulsive) is top-notch. Nigerian-born Ngozi Onwurah has done a spectacular job.

I guess there were a few moments, where they pushed the character a bit too far. On the other hand you can also see it as Joseph entering a phase were he was self-indulging on his own hatred and it spiraled out of control. Look the party scene.

You may not like it. But its hard not to admire it. And even harder to forget it.

Joseph Pascale used to be a computer programmer until he went to a small community meeting where everyone seems to be blaming everyone else for the fact that black boys are the worst performers at schools. Teachers were blamed for pushing them towards sports, schools blamed for not running "ethnic friendly" courses for them while others blamed the lack of schools just for black people. When one person blames the lack of black male teachers, Joe decides to give it a go. In his 70% black school he is the only black teacher and he tries to be a role model – encouraging the ones willing to try and trying to force those unwilling. However when he puts a hand on a boy's shoulder to guide him into a classroom, he is accused of abuse.

Originally to be called "F*** Black People" this film uses its title to let us know its intention to start a debate, to get people agreeing with it or get people disagreeing with it. What it says is that the black community has problems and they need addressing. However whether opening with the line "everything bad that has ever happened to me has involved a black person" may or may not have been the way to go (and, yes, I know the line refers to himself and is part of the point about taking personal responsibility, but it did open the gates for attacks straight away). To its credit the film does tackle difficult subjects head on. In the UK we do have a problem with black boys underachieving; is it racism? Why do other ethnic minority groups not have this problem to the same degree? Trying to address the problem we have the laughable CRE led by Trevor Phillips doing just the same thing – blaming everyone else. It is him and not a BBC drama that I want to hear challenging the black community but in fairness I suppose he is only one man and it is easier to point the finger than do anything else.

Of course the fact that a debate is a good thing doesn't necessarily read that this film is. It has moments that have value but the delivery is rather mixed. On one hand it has a story but on the other it has lots of asides to the camera and these two approaches are not married that well together. Likewise it varies wildly between really well made points and lines that are pure controversy baiters ("bring back slavery – we were good at that")not to mention stuff that comedians were doing a decade ago (stuff about "black" names and weaves). And so the good points that are well made and the interesting lines of debate are lost in the middle of stuff with a lot less value and a lot less interest. It is clear across the film that Joe himself has issues he needs to address but the film does a bad job of communicating what these areas are to us and instead just uses it as an excuse to say whatever he wants whether it is right or not. The cop out at the end is a real letdown as well – Joe learns a lesson and admits he is wrong by saying he won't take back everything he has said but the script doesn't allow him to say what points he made that were wrong and which were right. This leaves it all out there where really the film could have used this ending to summarise what it was saying. By saying "so shoot me" it suggests that maybe it is happy to leave Joe's wrong statements out there and not to deliver a message when it could grab controversy instead. The narrative is also pretty extreme and sees Joe jumping from one end of the scale to the other. The script seems to lack the control to hold it all together and Foster's writing needed a lot more work to build a better, more concise argument within a better story.

Kudos to the BBC for showing it though because this is the sort of thing they should be showing – not offensive or racist stuff but stuff that challenges but isn't commercial enough to get picked up by a channel relying on advertising revenue. I would sooner my license fee went on this than some rubbish sitcom that any channel can churn out (yes "My Hero" I'm looking at you). The direction is good though and the cast generally respond well. It belongs to Oyelowo of course and he is convincing from start to finish – what a shame that the material did not give him more consistency and depth to work with. Of the support cast both Amuka-Bird and the guy playing Jamal did well but nobody else really got the material they go (and even they didn't get that much).

Overall then this is an OK film at best. It mixes good delivery with bad delivery; mixes good points with points just designed to inflame; mixes serious points with "points" that a poor man's Eddie Murphy would reject as being too old and mixes a story with general attacks. Personally I don't think it is racist, naïve or any other mud being slung at it. There is a debate to be had and there are things that are wrong (several of them raised in this film), but this film isn't good enough to make an intelligent enough, sharp enough or meaningful enough summary of them.

i watched the movie and thought it was brilliant. i've just been reading some of the reviews and i am amazed at those who say it is a racist movie or the fact that it isn't real. i think the only extreme case in the movie was Joe going mad. every other issue in the movie is as true as the day follows night. the issue theory about the black crabs is also very true. come to think of it, back in those days the black slaves were bought. who sold them to the whites? i've been hunting for the movie to buy not knowing it's not for sale. i think most of the people who disagreed with the movie were born and bred here in Britain or they've been in the country for too long they don't know what is happening in their countries. why should Africa, with all the resources they have-in abundance- suffer the poverty they suffer? answer: the black crabs theory.does anyone reading this have any idea of the amount of resources the DR Congo has? so why aren't the people of congo rich, why are they fighting? the black crabs theory and the fact that the 'average' black person is self-centered. so instead of the black trying to be like the white in the way they talk and dress, we should be thinking like them. think at least one hundred years ahead and take action. talk is cheap. please show it again soon, i've been tyring to buy one from shops not knowing it's not for sale. thank you BBC for showing it