Shoot the Messenger

As can be seen from some of the comments posted here, there are plenty of people intent on 'shooting the messenger', rather than listen to the message itself. In this case, the message happens to be the questioning of blame-culture which exists among certain sections of the black community. It is the contention of the author (Sharon Foster, herself a black writer) that it is this culture, and not that which is being blamed (ie white people), which is the cause of black underachievement. It is a serious argument, and one that can withstand close scrutiny, but that hasn't stopped the usual suspects from using their lazy cries of 'Racism' to try and silence the debate. A similar point was made during the film itself and it is interesting that many of the same terms of abuse used to castigate the main character in the film are identical to the ones being thrown around here (mainly by people who don't appear to have seen it). That would seem to indicate that Foster is, indeed, on to something.

Of course, this film could amount to no more than a 'worthy' drama, but 'Shoot The Messenger' is much more than that, due, in no small measure, to the quality of the writing. Foster has constructed an engrossing journey of self-discovery which begins with provocative words ( a gauntlet deliberately thrown in the face of the audience) uttered by Joe Pascale (excellently played by David Oyelowo), a well-intentioned but somewhat aloof black teacher, who falls foul of the authorities after he is accused of hitting a pupil. The fact that this is not true does not prevent him being vilified on a local black radio station. He loses the case in court and this leads him into a spiral of depression and madness, which he increasingly blames on black people (an interesting inversion of the blaming of white people which seems acceptable among his black contemporaries). I found this portion of the work the least satisfactory since the script sped over his insanity rather too quickly leading to loss of detail. After spending some time on the street, he is befriended by a middle-aged Black Christian lady. It is at this point the script really catches fire with some astute and occasionally hard-hitting views of the black community. All of this is maintained by a high degree of directorial energy and a high class cast. Highly recommended.

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.

This is surprisingly strong and engaging movie. Usually when a commercial production delves into highly charged topics, such as race, the results can be less than pleasing. However, this movie is an exception. Utilizing an almost documentary-like format, the deals with issues such as racism, self-hate and emotional trauma. Skillfully directed by Ngozi Onwurah, this movie dramatizes what can happen when hatred is turned inward. The performances are excellent. But what makes this particularly effective is that it presents a story that is not contrived, that deals with real issues, and does so without relying on cinematic gimmicks like special effects or becoming preachy. The themes in this story resonates with the audience and for that reason alone this movie is worth watching. This movie deals squarely with the theme of self-hate: its etiology and manifestations. In this movie the dialog is candid,, unambiguous and strong. Characters are forced to call into question their own sense of worth, their own sense of identity and come to terms with who they are, and who they think they are. The main character is heroic, yet he is flawed hero, who experiences his own personal odyssey of self-discovery. What makes this movie so brilliant is the fundamental simplicity of the story. There is no complicated, convoluted plot, no pseudo-philosophical sophistry; what is portrayed is done so plainly and clearly. The world is a complicated place but that doesn't mean a movie has to be complicated. Profound themes do not need to be obscured by special effects or overly wordy scripts. This movie is proof of that.

My initial reactions were;

Negative feedback:

1)The writer invented black characters just to try and "prove" a point (e.g. the daughter of the Christian woman with 5 kids from 5 fathers, and also the girl looking for a job and asking about maternity leave). They didn't actually have anything to do with the storyline, and just existed so he could turn his nose up at them. The black on black shooting also had very little point to it, and was just there to "prove" a point.

2)The writer deliberately squeezed in forced levels of negative black stereotypes - trying too hard to provoke.

3) The only redeeming black character (his girlfriend) wasn't given a strong enough voice to actually put forward a counter argument (and making her have 'hair issues' was a real cop out!!).

4) Lots of the negative behaviour from black people was way over the top and unbelievable or even petty (e.g. when the guy in the job centre kicked over the bin when the main guy was cleaning up. I couldn't see that happening.)

5) No wider context of the situation. E.g. He said he was the only teacher who cared about the black kids, but the film didn't attempt to show how the white teachers didn't care. So resulted in all the black characters looking bad, and all the white character were helpful or good.

6) Lots of statements just put in there to shock - such as when he said they should bring back slavery. Again that had no real use in the storyline, and was only there to shock and provoke.

Positive feedback

1) Well filmed and acted >Interesting how even when he still hated black people he could embrace the black church. (the stuff of very loaded debate! ha, ha, ha )

2) Important issue raised of how heavy handedness and harsh treatment of ourselves may be counter productive.(The moment of realisation of mistakes for the main character)

3) There were a couple of funny moments and gave the ability to laugh at ourselves without self hatred, but unfortunately they were hugely overshadowed by far too many moments of self hatred.

4) Quite strong ending.

Overall I wasn't as offended as I thought I would be, but I do think there was a far less exploitative way of exploring the same issues. Apparently the BBC sent her back the script a couple of times saying it wasn't bad or shocking enough. The writer got seduced by that attention, and unfortunately that "trying to shock" factor has got in the way of what could have been an important debate for the black community. It tried to tackle every issue and bit off more than it could chew. I feel the main character was just living through the experiences of the writer Sharon Foster, and not, as she claims, putting an honest mirror to the black community. A lot of the things in there, I felt, were her issues, not anyone else's.

STAR RATING: ***** Jodie Marsh **** Michelle Marsh *** Kym Marsh ** Rodney Marsh * Hackney Marsh

Joe Pescale (David Oyelowo) used to have a good job in IT but gave it all up to become a teacher and try to turn around the lives of the disadvantaged black kids he was teaching. He is the only black teacher in a school of predominantly black kids but he soldiers on regardless trying to make a difference. But it all goes wrong one day when he taps a troublesome pupil named Gemal (David Mnee) on the shoulder, which he blows out of proportion, costing him his job and the venomous spurn of the black community. After a lot of heckling and spurn, he becomes a paranoid recluse and starts imagining that all black people are evil and are out to get him.

As if to whip up controversy like a jelly cake, the original title of the film was going to be F*ck Black People before the conservative BBC decided that would be just a little too provocative and toned it down to the title we have. The film sparked a lot of outrage anyway and was even branded outright BNP propaganda. I can see how people drew this conclusion, as the film plays at times like a none stop rundown of all the various different bad aspects of black culture and the black community, from promiscuous single mothers with many different kids from different fathers to gun crime and failure in the school system. I can see how some may see it as depressing viewing, but I must say I never saw it this way. It's all played in a gritty, pull no punches way but it compels and enlightens you rather than weighing you down. And it's helped no end by Oyelowo in the lead role. The Spooks star delivers a fantastic performance, perfectly conveying paranoia and depression but also giving the film an energetic, enlightening and wryly humorous lead character who focuses on all the negative aspects of his culture in an angry and frustrated but also gleefully cynical way and even offers something of a tip on how things could change. The supporting cast also all shine in smaller roles but as he is carrying the film, he is the main player in making it what it is.

Powerful and hard-hitting, then, and certainly likely to offend some, but it's all (Like it or hate it) true and offers some tough food for thought for all the problems in the black community and the issues it needs to address. ****