Meeting the Man

When James Baldwin takes over the direction of the film, it's great. Everything he says is still true, but the director initially comes with a very narrow idea of what the film should be, missing the reality Baldwin is trying to share. Had the director listened to Baldwin from the beginning, or let Baldwin drive the film instead of going from a plan, it could have been more extraordinary. But kudos to the director for eventually listening (slightly) to Baldwin.

I found this frustrating. I feel Baldwin could of expressed his history his story's and experiences better, he could of really shared his voice. He had a movie in which could be shown to future generations but he chose to refuse because the colour of the directors; which in my opinion makes him no different then what he cares so much about. If I were one of the cameramen I would of been disappointed as I am white but my family came over to this country as black slaves. To quick to point a finger. This is a person with great talent and will forever be an important figure but do not watch this instead read about him and his books.

Too many times the voiceless have been used (and still are on) as a subject for privileged people in need of a story so they can be a 'maker'. (See some of my other reviews concerning this).

When it comes to the marginalised, rarely documentaries have been done ethically and sincerely. The power ratio is off kilter and without integrity the process and result is often cliché, one dimensional and narrow. The caucasian in power often thinks he is doing something good for the poor brown and black, but not (willingly) conscious enough to see that it's an act of selfishness. The marginalised used as a tool, yet again. A terrible irony.

If the calling to shed light on them was sincere, they could easily facilitate the means for them to produce it themselves, for themselves. But no.

Baldwin here in 1970, very intelligent, sharp and conscious. He took the invitation of what would have him be subjected to the makers paradigm. He flipped it on him and shifted it into vulnerable reality, the portrayal of a fierce naked marginalised soul with piercing screaming eyes conscious of his major voice as a minority... shouting loudly for those without, way up above the narrow and limited subjective box of what would have been.

Interesting conversations, the way Baldwin presents the issues really holds the attention and leaves me full of thoughts. Although it took me aback, the scene in Place de la Bastille leads to an essential point of the documentary: the way Baldwin felt while being filmed by a white man. It is frustrating to feel that the director's interests and the topics he chose (the books, the position as a writer) did not match Baldwin's broader concerns about life and history.

I can't stand when someone tries to be abstract and downright absurd so others can say "Woah man, so deep".

I wanted to see 1970 Paris, and hoping someone would say something with clarity, instead of the jive-talkin'.. I've downloaded a few of his books, but after seeing him fool around and just being a primadona, I have no interest in spending hours with 1/100th of the content, of things I already know and experienced myself without being a jerk.