Author Topic: Harriet Tubman Biopic Draws Controversy with Lead Actress Not ADOS  (Read 2960 times)

Offline stanleyballard

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
    • View Profile


Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 7626
    • View Profile
Re: Harriet Tubman Biopic Draws Controversy with Lead Actress Not ADOS
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2019, 04:16:29 pm »
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1




Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 7626
    • View Profile

Offline Reginald Hudlin

  • Landlord
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9888
    • View Profile
Re: Harriet Tubman Biopic Draws Controversy with Lead Actress Not ADOS
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2019, 07:15:06 pm »
If there's any trend in Black America that disgusts me, it's the ADOS movement.  It's so anti-intellectual, so anti-black nationalism.  They identify with slavery as their main point of identity...how sick is that? 

The movement is financed by the right wingers who want to suppress the black vote in the next election.

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 7626
    • View Profile
Re: Harriet Tubman Biopic Draws Controversy with Lead Actress Not ADOS
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2019, 06:18:45 am »
If there's any trend in Black America that disgusts me, it's the ADOS movement.  It's so anti-intellectual, so anti-black nationalism.  They identify with slavery as their main point of identity...how sick is that? 

The movement is financed by the right wingers who want to suppress the black vote in the next election.

Mr. Hudlin,

I respectfully disagree with you. While I am not an ADOS movement member/devotee (though I am ADOS), I do listen often to podcasts from its founders, Yvette Carnell and Antonio Moore, and whether you agree with them, or not, they are not anti-intellectual. Carnell has a book club, that has gone over books like Color of Law, and most recently MLK's Where Do We Go from Here? Both refer back to data to inform their take on our current political, socioeconomic condition, and Moore especially has impressed upon me the precariousness of Black America's economic situation, and how it looks to get even worse by mid-century. ADOS supports reparations, stronger than any mainstream liberal group, and certainly the Democratic Party, so how is that anti-black nationalism? Further, they don't want to suppress the Black vote, they just want greater accountability from the candidates who are running-something even people like Al Sharpton and other mainstream Blacks claim they sometimes want too but will knuckle under quickly and accept whatever the Democratic Party offers up; ADOS supposedly is not going to crumble this time, and they are demanding action and tangibles for their support, which is something other groups do, and are rewarded by. It's just black people who are supposed to vote, vote, vote, and get little to nothing in return, but then expected to vote even harder the next time, for little or even less. ADOS is one of the groups attempting to escape from that dead-end political vise.

ADOS is not anti-Black nationalist (depending on how you define that), though they are anti-Pan Africanist. And even here, they make some good distinctions based on ethnicity, lineage, and nationality, and they have made me more aware of those differences, and how some (but not all) Black immigrants harbor anti-Black American views and work against the Black American community/our interests. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out. ADOS isn't only for reparations for Black Americans, however they say that other groups should press for reparations with the country's that enslaved them, as opposed to coming here and then either wanting reparations from the US government or joining the anti-reparations crowd because they won't be receiving any reparations from our government. I do think there is a tinge of xenophobia at times when it comes to some ADOS arguments, which I'm not cool with-but there are Black immigrants or first generation Black Americans who also support ADOS to be clear. Further, while I really wished that Pan-Africanism worked, I think ADOS has every right to question if it works, if it's ever worked, or if it's time has passed, and people need to figure out something else. And Black Americans have a right to question this because in many respects we are the best example of Pan-Africanism that's ever existed, with so many of our ancestors being stripped of their cultural/familial identities and having to join together and become a new, linked people. I've even seen an ADOS fellow traveler suggest that once Black Americans get their stuff together they will be better able to join up with and assist other Blacks around the world. I prefer that position as opposed to a strong dividing line between Black Americans, Diasporic Africans, and Continental Africans.

As for going back to slavery, I think ADOS in a way is trying to take the stigma away from what our ancestors endured. Isn't the mainstream approved New York Times's 1619 Project doing something similar and do you consider what the NYT to be doing, also 'sick'? Though slavery was horrific, and it's not our whole story, for many Black Americans, that was the origin story, the start of us becoming a distinct group, with our own history and ways of seeing and making it in the world. I sometimes feel we are supposed to be ashamed of what we endured, how that warped us, and that other groups of Blacks, with more intact histories, lineages, and cultures are supposed to be 'better' or have more 'roots' than us. But ADOS has helped me more realize that we have a valuable history and a worthy culture all on our own, and in many respects we are the global face of Blackness, which is sometimes bad, but often good, and there's nothing to be ashamed of; instead its something we should embrace. We should not feel like strangers in our own home, and definitely not allow other Blacks, or others fresh off the boat, to come in here and denigrate us (the CBS show "Bob Hearts Abishola" comes to mind; as does Cynthia Erivo's social media swipes at Black Americans. How do you expect a conscious Black American audience to accept a woman playing one of the greatest Black Americans to be contemptuous of the same people Tubman was part of and sacrificed so much to save?).

I am not going to support the Harriet Tubman movie, definitely after I saw Erivo's tweets and her fumbling non-attempts (IMO) to address the issue and not just make it about her and how she was 'hurt' by the reaction, or reduce the negative reactions to her casting as simply a lack of Hollywood roles in general for Black actors. Nollywood, and Erivo's perhaps easier chances to make it there aren't even brought up. It's Hollywood or nothing I guess for her. She wants the EGOT and she will ride the back of Black America to get it, even sullying herself (my words here) playing a Black American.

And this isn't solely a situation about "bad" Black Americans mistreating Black Brits/Nigerians, because some Africans don't like the casting of Lupita Nyong'o in the adaptation of Americanah because she is of a different nationality than the character she is playing. For me, it's about who gets to tell our stories, who owns our history-us or someone else? I similarly plan on not supporting the Daniel Kaluuya as Fred Hampton movie either. It's almost like they are slapping us in the face now with some of these castings. It's not about the ability of the actors here, but about their disconnection from the source material/history. Over the last several years we've had non-Black Americans play MLK, Coretta Scott King, Solomon Northup, Buddy Bolden, soon Harriet Tubman (and Ervio will be playing Aretha Franklin as well), and Fred Hampton, and these are all from American studios, which is different than American studios picking American actors like Denzel (Steven Biko), Forest Whitaker (Idi Amin), Will Smith (Bennet Omalu), Jennifer Hudson (Winnie Mandela), Terrence Howard (Nelson Mandela), and Morgan Freeman (Nelson Mandela) to take on African historical figures. It's like Hollywood is trying to replace Black Americans with non-Black Americans to better sell more palatable historical takes. This happens with White actors as well, though the history and context is different, it's Whites making decisions for and about other Whites, as opposed to White studios making decisions about Black actors and how to portray Black history. Further, I've never seen a White actor who plays a White historical figure denigrate the people that person identified with. Even Christian Bale, who did an excellent job as Dick Cheney in Vice, went after Cheney personally, and not White Americans as a group.

I remember reading about how Jamie Foxx and the Django Unchained cast had emotional reactions to that film, and then I think about how Denzel brought the fire in Malcolm X, Nate Parker's great turn as Nat Turner, and how Will inhabited Muhammad Ali. I don't see the same fire when it comes to non-Black Americans playing Black American historical roles, because IMO they don't have the same emotional connection. Doesn't mean they aren't good actors, or the films they've been in (like Bolden, Selma, or 12 Years A Slave, etc.) were bad films. Just that there's a disconnect there, like they can't fully go there. Not saying that with Bolden actor Gary Carr, who I didn't realize was British until later, but that film itself had some of its own issues, with a white director attempting to fill in the blanks of a historical figure with little written history. I didn't know anything about Bolden going into the film so I couldn't judge if the film got the man 'right' or not in any case. I also think RH's own film Marshall, the people involved there had more of an emotional connection, they knew how much it meant to honor the history in a way I don't think anyone who comes from another place, country, or culture will not automatically have because it's not really their history, it's not really them. Doesn't mean they can't do the work, study up on it, find ways to connect, but still that's different than coming up in it, and being able to tap into that experience.

If I do feel the itch to see Harriet Tubman once the marketing for it kicks in, I bought the Blu-Ray for A Woman Called Moses, and I think I'll just watch that instead.

https://ados101.com/about-ados
« Last Edit: October 24, 2019, 05:42:16 am by Emperorjones »

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 7626
    • View Profile
Re: Harriet Tubman Biopic Draws Controversy with Lead Actress Not ADOS
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2019, 07:21:45 am »
What Antonio Moore says about Trump's 'lynching' tweet:

http://thegrio.com/2019/10/22/watch-the-evil-history-of-lynching-and-why-president-trumps-tweet-was-disrespectful/

From what I've seen of ADOS, they criticize both Republicans and Democrats. I do think they spend more time on the Democrats though because Black people by and large aren't supporting the GOP so there is little to be gained by convincing them of being more skeptical about them or less supportive of them.

Offline Reginald Hudlin

  • Landlord
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9888
    • View Profile
Re: Harriet Tubman Biopic Draws Controversy with Lead Actress Not ADOS
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2019, 02:33:41 am »
ADOS is dangerous horsesh*t.  Yvette is MAGA and there is a photo of her wearing the hat.  Anti-Pan African?  So she's anti-Malcolm X?  Anti-WEB DuBois?  Get the f*ck otta here with that bullsh*t.  Never.

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9245
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Harriet Tubman Biopic Draws Controversy with Lead Actress Not ADOS
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2019, 03:32:07 am »
Extremely dangerous.

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 7626
    • View Profile
Re: Harriet Tubman Biopic Draws Controversy with Lead Actress Not ADOS
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2019, 05:19:22 am »
ADOS is dangerous horsesh*t.  Yvette is MAGA and there is a photo of her wearing the hat.  Anti-Pan African?  So she's anti-Malcolm X?  Anti-WEB DuBois?  Get the f*ck otta here with that bullsh*t.  Never.


Yvette did have the hat, which was for shock value, which she has explained. I don't agree with everything Carnell (or Antonio Moore for that matter) says, but she makes good points, and I've been coming around to her way of thinking more and more over the years. Moore has been the most out there in support of Byron Allen's case against Comcast, with the Trump administration supporting Comcast. And Moore is the co-founder of ADOS with Carnell, so how MAGA is that? I can't think off hand of the critiques against Trump that Carnell has made, because she generally focuses on reparations, economic inequality, and black politics (which aren't rooted much in conservative politics) but I am certain she has criticized him. If anything, I think ADOS is creating a lane that would be more truly progressive for us than what we have with the Democratic Party. They want reparations, which would be transformative, and equalizing in a way no Democratic legislation or initiative, from the New Deal to Great Society, has been. Further, Trump is against reparations, so how does Carnell's supposed MAGA leanings coincide with that? Also, Carnell is a big proponent of government action to solve our problems, which is not conservative at all. Sometimes, I disagree with her criticism of capitalism and the 'do-for-self' ethos which I do think has and can be beneficial to us. If anything, Carnell's economic views might be far left.

I can't speak on how Carnell views Malcolm X or DuBois, however, I think we all know that those men have been dead for over 50 years now, and I would say (these are my words) that some ADOS, or ADOS traveling, proponents criticize the existing state and viability of Pan-Africanism, as well they should. DuBois, Malcolm X, and Dr. King, while all great leaders and towering intellects, were not gods, and I think it's been far more dangerous for us to hold their words as holy writ half a century after they are no longer here. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be students of them, and others, but also that we keep in mind that they were looking at the problems confronting them, at that time, and had no way to truly see what future generations would be dealing with, though I think Malcolm and Kwame Ture were pretty good at seeing how things would turn out, but I digress. Making some of these figures gods has been used against us, when you have Fox News and Glenn Beck quoting-or half-quoting King in an attempt to go against contemporary demands for change. White liberals, among others, do this as well.

You don't have to give Carnell, Moore, or any of the other ADOS proponents the time of day, but it's not intellectually honest to cast aspersions on them without actually listening to what they have to say or reading what they have written. 

It's easy to get huffy about ADOS, but yet, there's very little ire for the Democrats who underdeliver, don't deliver, or deliver pain time after time, and we are expected to just keep voting for them. Where's the ire for that?

To me, you consider ADOS dangerous because you know they have some credible points, or are at least can point out how the Democrats haven't done much to alleviate our condition, and aren't planning to do so either-especially if they get another centrist nominee-and that that can make the ADOS message attractive to rightly disaffected black voters. You might say that's the result of 'dumb' or easily misled people, but if you believe that, then do you truly believe that the non-'elite' black people who vote Democrat (or the blacks who just vote GOP) aren't suffering from the same affliction? How much sense does it make to vote for the Democrats? And since you brought up Malcolm X earlier, Brother Malcolm brilliantly broke down the folly of such mindless voting in "The Ballot or the Bullet", and even though that speech is 50 years out of date it still holds.

If ADOS is so dangerous, tell me what all this 'brave' or 'smart' voting for the Democrats have gotten us over the last 50 years?
« Last Edit: October 25, 2019, 05:54:58 am by Emperorjones »

Offline jefferson L.O.B. sergeant

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 3047
    • View Profile
Re: Harriet Tubman Biopic Draws Controversy with Lead Actress Not ADOS
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2019, 01:13:58 pm »
ADOS is dangerous horsesh*t.  Yvette is MAGA and there is a photo of her wearing the hat.  Anti-Pan African?  So she's anti-Malcolm X?  Anti-WEB DuBois?  Get the f*ck otta here with that bullsh*t.  Never.

You can't be serious?

You are being extremely dismissive of a movement that has captured the zeitgeist of The Black community. I find your comments even more ironic given that I just watched Yvette Carnell's book club concerning Dr. King. Dr. King's assessment of what Black revolution needed to be more than 50 years ago now is exactly the same scenario that we are facing today.

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 7626
    • View Profile
Re: Harriet Tubman Biopic Draws Controversy with Lead Actress Not ADOS
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2019, 03:42:03 pm »
ADOS is dangerous horsesh*t.  Yvette is MAGA and there is a photo of her wearing the hat.  Anti-Pan African?  So she's anti-Malcolm X?  Anti-WEB DuBois?  Get the f*ck otta here with that bullsh*t.  Never.

You can't be serious?

You are being extremely dismissive of a movement that has captured the zeitgeist of The Black community. I find your comments even more ironic given that I just watched Yvette Carnell's book club concerning Dr. King. Dr. King's assessment of what Black revolution needed to be more than 50 years ago now is exactly the same scenario that we are facing today.

You're so right about it capturing the zeitgeist of the Black community and it's shifted the political conversation. In 2016, the Breakfast Club was talking to Hillary Clinton about hot sauce, but now-thanks mostly to the efforts of ADOS-even they have to ask the candidates what do they specifically plan to do for black people. ADOS is why reparations became a hot topic on the presidential trail because even Mr. Socialist Bernie Sanders was openly opposed to reparations in 2016, but even he, and many of the rest of the candidates, now reluctantly give support to the idea of 'studying' (really burying) the issue, but that's better than the straight up no reparation advocates used to get. And ADOS advocacy prompted the Democrats' attempt to squelch the issue with the sham Congressional hearings about reparations this summer, but that didn't work. ADOS is forcing the Democratic presidential candidates, the Democrats, and some across the nation, to look at this issue afresh and to consider how we deal with the legacy of slavery in a tangible, really restorative way. That's not something we've seen before, and that's not because of the 'progressives' (White, Black, Brown, or otherwise), it's not because of the Democratic Party, other parts of the Democratic Party coalition, it's because of ADOS. Beyond reparations, I think ADOS is forcing the Democrats, among others, to contend with the racial inequality wealth gap in ways that specify race, and not sweep it under class (which is what Democrats generally like to do). ADOS has led to a greater political education and awakening within the Black community, so what's so wrong with that?
« Last Edit: October 25, 2019, 03:45:49 pm by Emperorjones »