The thing has surprised me the most about this week when talking about The Informer and Uptight is how important the theme or message is to writers and directors. Although I enjoy movies, I would not even attempt to claim to be a movie aficionado. So, during my research for the presentation and looking at correspondence between the writers, I was surprised, maybe naively, at how important the true message is. In addition, in our discussion during class, I realized that I had never dived so deep into the connections between different works of digital art. I’d like to think that I can understand the minute differences between works such as The Informer and Uptight, but I know that I was not as informed as I wanted to be on the importance of these minute details. Because of this, I think I learned a lot about the connection between the films; however, I think I learned even more on how to properly critique and connect digital multimedia. I look forward to doing my research not only on what small details writers and directors wish for the audience to see, but I also want to learn why they do this. From examples such as John Ford with The Informer, it is clear that the why is most directly affected by the opinions and lives of the writers, a fascinating connection I have never really considered. I think that this realization can really enrich the movie-watching process. Furthermore, by being interested in these small details, more coherent dialogue can be formed on how movies today and in the past address social, racial, and economic issues present in society. Although these discussions should certainly address texts and events happening in real-time, movies can be a way to work on issues while also enjoying a well-made movie. Although I still wouldn’t call myself a movie aficionado – and I don’t ever think I will be – this week made me appreciate movies more than I ever had before.
Who Will be Remembered?
Over the past week’s discussions, a question was proposed regarding the importance of a central leader during times of serious change, like the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Dr. Martin Luther King is the person that everybody thinks of when they talk about this time. He was always the one delivering the speeches, marching in the front of the pack, and pushing the people of the movement further to continue to demand change. For this reason, Martin Luther King will forever be remembered as one of the most important people in the history of the United States. The question that I pose now is, who will be remembered from our generation? Who is our central leader?
There is no definitive answer to this question, but if I had to theorize about some of the most notable faces of the Black Lives Matters movement, one person that inevitably comes to mind is Collin Kaepernick. Although he has not spent much time in the public eye within the past few years, I still believe that his story is something that will be remembered and even compared to some of the actions of the leaders from 68. Looking back, we view the leaders of this time as heroes and show immense amounts of respect and gratitude for their passion towards the Civil Rights Movement, but I am sure that during the 60s they were not treated the same way. I believe that the same will be said for Collin Kaepernick. He first took a knee in 2016 and was met with fierce criticism, but he did not waiver in his actions. His situation got so bad that he ended up losing his job and hasn’t played another game in the NFL since. Now, four years later, players across all professional sports are taking a knee to show their support of the BLM movement. This idea was conceived by somebody who met extreme criticism for his actions, but he persisted and will now be remembered as a leader of our time and this movement.
The impact of a Leader
How does a leader, like MLK, impact a movement? This question led to many different answers and a long conversation. The argument was directed at the idea of whether or not a leader significantly impacts a movement or just plays a role in the face of it. After a long debate, many argued that a “leader” provides momentum and ideals that people can follow. I agree with this statement because a leader allows people to unite under a set of ideas and actions and act on their frustrations together. This creates “the movement” and gives people something to fight for. Altogether, these actions create this momentum and desire to fight for the people.
A classmate then initiated the conversation about social media being the main leader for the BLM movement. This idea is very interesting considering the consistent media converge on the recent movements. Social media apps provide constant information, whether its accurate or not, and influences its users to a very high degree. The idea of social media being the current leader of BLM, I believe, is very accurate. Social media has provided videos and ideas that have fueled the momentum of the movement and a place where people can unite and fight together. Various social media accounts have created certain pages that allow people to follow the ideas they resonate with and rally under the frustration they personally are facing.
During the conversation, I argued that events lead to the fight and fuel of the movement. I still agree with my point but have other ideas on the subject. I believe that certain events, like the recent deaths and violent arrests, have led to further fire and momentum of the BLM movement. These injustices have led to greater frustration and angry from the followers and allies of the BLM movement. Although these events have fueled “the fire”, the people of the movement and their actions of uniting with each are the ways that the momentum is maintained.
Setting and Our Ideologies
Having read several of Liam O’Flaherty’s short stories, I was struck by the power of his novel, The Informer, and its ability to place a reader back in this time of great shadow and darkness. I noticed, throughout the book, that setting is a huge part of the writing and influences the mental journeys of each character, especially Gypo. The darkness enveloping Gypo in several scenes throughout the novel was comforting to him in his rage or his mental confusion. The influence of setting in O’Flaherty’s writing lead me to think about the influence of our surroundings on our lives and our mentalities and ideologies today. Across the world, different cultures are affected by uprisings, riots, war, peace, or political changes. Each country, and each neighborhood, even, is subject to major differences. What people in rural France felt about Charles de Gaulle and the revolutionary movements would have been vastly different from those living in Paris, just as the ideologies of farmers in America differ greatly from individuals living in cities such as Chicago or New York.
With the different settings influencing our everyday thoughts and mentalities, what are we called to do as unique individuals? Are we meant to place ourselves outside of our comfort zone and learn about other places, or are we called to be people of our homes and our surroundings? Are the homes and places we grew up in supposed to influence our ideologies, and how do we change these ideologies if they do?
Focus on what connects us
The first course that I taught at the University level was a Modern Black American lit class. We read texts from the Harlem Renaissance, the civil rights era, and then ended the course examining neo-slave narratives. The final text that we read was Edward P Jones’s The Known World. At the end of this class—and now all of my classes—I ask students what worked, what did not work, and what they learned in the course. At the end of this first course, what surprised the primarily white students of the class was the fact that there is consistent criticism of white liberalism in the African American texts that we read. In this class, and many more since, white students are taken aback when they discover that black American writers are equally as critical of white liberalism as they are of white supremacy. One student in that first class, stated that one thing he learned, and what really stood out for him, was this criticism of white liberalism in African American texts.
In our class—Bloody Conflict in America and Ireland: 1968-69—we have come across some of this criticism. In King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he criticizes liberal white America. He writes:
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I emphasize the last sentence in the excerpt from King’s text to draw attention to the reason why white liberalism, or the white moderate as King references, is so disconcerting for many black Americans. Hearing someone say, I believe you are right but I do not agree with the way in which you are attempting to achieve your goals, is frustrating. For many black Americans, the vehemently non-racist white American who individually says, I judge each person as they are, but does very little to dismantle the structural system that allows racism in America to persist, is as problematic or “more bewildering than” the openly racist white person. To this “go slow” approach, King said in an address on 4 April 1967, “We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now.” 53 years later, while much progress has been made in dismantling systematic racism, the events that have occurred this year shows that a sense of urgency is still needed as Americans struggle to tackle structural oppression.
In the film Uptight, the frustration that structural change has not been achieved for black America is demonstrated through the performances of each of the characters. The black characters in the film are poor, hungry, angry, and completely disenfranchised. The new generation has decided to take up arms in hopes that a violent revolt will finally make white America see that black Americans are worthy of civil liberties. The white character in the film Teddy says, “You can’t do it alone. Without me you cannot win.” He is proven right. When he tries calling to warn the group about the police coming to get Johnny they hang up on him. They reject his help. Johnny is killed. This is an addition to the Dassin/Mayfield/Dee production of The Informer. I have to wonder why they added this detail to their version. Are the artists commenting on white and black cooperation in dismantling structural racism?
Made at the time of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, with a primarily black cast, Uptight (1968) attempts to capture the feeling of desolation and hopelessness that plagued Afro-America by the late 1960s. While Uptight is a remake of John Ford’s 1935 film The Informer, director Jules Dassin and cowriters Ruby Dee and Julian Mayfield use both Liam O’Flaherty’s novel The Informer and the Ford film to create Uptight. O’Flaherty’s The Informer reflects his frustration with his newly forming country. Ford’s version concentrates on the Irish struggle for independence from the United Kingdom. Dassin, Dee, and Mayfield take these two representations of Irish conflict and repackage them into an Afro-American context. The film focuses on both black insurgency and the “civil war” brewing between members of the civil rights movement (which soon after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. would split into warring factions).
When Uptight premiered December 1968, some of the reviews were not favorable and specifically these reviewers were annoyed that The Informer had been remade with a black cast. Famed film critic Roger Ebert wrote 19 February 1969, that Uptight was a good but less than perfect film. He writes: “Dassin made a strategic error at the very beginning, when he chose ‘Up Tight’ as a remake of ‘The Informer,’ Liam O’Flaherty’s novel (and John Ford’s film) about the Irish revolution. The transplant doesn’t work. The Irish and black revolutions have little in common, either in methods or in style.” One unnamed critic berated Dassin for basing his film on The Informer and thereby “setting up an implicit comparison between the noble history of the Irish struggle for independence and such a paltry thing as black insurgency in America’s inner cities.”
Not only does Ebert fail to realize that the book The Informer and the film The Informer are not concerned with the same moments in Irish history, he and the unknown critic both miss specific nuances of Irish history in their criticism of how the referenced Uptight relates to the Irish/Irish American projects. It is not that the Irish and Afro-American experience is the same; there are many differences between Ireland and Afro-America. Further, I do not think Mayfield, Dee, and Dassin are suggesting that the Afro-American and Irish experiences mirror each other. Rather, the artists are suggesting that there were intriguing similarities between the two situations and that perhaps those involved in the struggle can learn from each other. Perhaps, the makers of Uptight use the Irish situation to make a statement on commonalities between black Americans and their fellow white citizens. Rather than focus on what differentiates “the noble history of the Irish struggle for independence and such a paltry thing as black insurgency in America’s inner cities” perhaps being united in the fact that the struggle for liberty can unite people across boundaries is the underlining message of Uptight.
With the addition of Teddy as a character, the makers of Uptight suggest that while the frustration with white liberalism is valid, black Americans still need white Americans’s help to dismantle white supremacy.
For me, it is not about what separates us. My work is focused on what connects us. From my perspective, the differences between two groups or literatures makes the discovered similarities that much more exciting. Most importantly, in the the contrast, I focus on what can be learned by examining those connections.
Individualism vs. Common Good
After reading and discussing this week, what really stuck with me was the dichotomy between the good of the group and individual survival. In both The Informer and Uptight, one character, out of desperation, chose to sacrifice another in the movement for money. Their willingness to give up on the movement for money to survive and start a new life demonstrates the desperation that poverty creates. Guilt over the deaths of their friends has an interesting effect on both of these characters, though. Although they both originally intended to use the money to get out of their current situation and start a new life with their significant others, they both use the money to get drunk and cause chaos throughout the night. At the end, they both claim that they had no idea what they were doing, and did not know the effects of their actions. Both still want to be accepted back into the group and try to be loyal to the movement, even after their mistake.
The behavior of the characters in both The Informer and Uptight elucidates the inner conflict between the individual and the good of the group that seems to exist in all movements. Movements are born out of chronic problems within a society, and economic issues are usually always a factor. One of these movements’ goals was to end the cycle of extreme poverty and economic inequality in these communities, but the poverty that they were fighting drives some of the members to act out of desperation. The members are loyal to the movement and are willing to do so many things to be accepted back into the group, but they also give up on it when they are offered a way out of their poverty and problems. Most of all, I think these works perfectly demonstrate that individual need will always take priority over the human desire to be accepted and belong to a group with a greater cause.
Breaking Points
After discussing whether or not “Uptight” and “The Informer” are trying to equate the two narratives of the black struggle in America and the Irish struggle, I do not believe that to be the case. The two stories are not trying to equate the Irish quest for independence and resulting internal strife with the black struggle for equality. However the reason Dassin would create his adaptation of “The Informer” is to show how despite the differences of the two movements, both faced the same breaking point and sense of crisis as they looked to turn to violence.
The striking similarity of both movements that built up to their respective breaking points that we witnessed in both works was the duration of tolerance of mistreatment and injustice by the oppressed. Obviously the problems faced by both groups are very different; the Irish lived under British rule for 800 years while black people faced four centuries of discrimination and oppression in America.
However as Martin Luther King Jr. talked about in “Our Struggle,” in America – the South, specifically – the black community almost accepted white people’s rationalization of their actions and some started to believe it. And then at the start of “Uptight” we see King’s funeral procession and the committee’s decision to take up arms. After centuries of discrimination, they turn to violence because they’re too frustrated. Not only have they been mistreated, but once progress starts to actually occur, one of their most prominent leaders is killed in an act of violence. This is the breaking point we witness in “Uptight.”
For the Irish, their breaking point comes after the Easter Rising. Following their first significant uprising in over 100 years, the British execute the leaders at Kilmainham. This sparks outrage and increases support for Irish independence causing a period of violence in which the War of Independence and Civil War occur – the settings of O’Flaherty’s and Ford’s versions, respectively. The brutal acts of violence by the British, mainly the executions, are the breaking point for the Irish revolutionaries causing the sense of crisis and paranoia that we witness in “the Informer” as they get tangled into violence and begin to question how to proceed with their movement.
While the problems faced by both groups are obviously different, Dassin turns to the Irish struggle because the period of crisis and internal strife among revolutionaries captured in “the Informer” is what the Civil Rights Movement experienced as it grew increasingly violent following the death of leaders such Malcolm X and King.
68 blog entries
(I am including all my posts from Sakai in this post to catch up) I have been thinking a lot about this Richard Viven article that I read about the arc from the 68′ generation to the current situation. One of the rather ironic factoids noted in that Daniel Bendit Cohen, an ardent 68er and anti establishment figure, who now in his old age has pledged his political support to the technocrats technocrat, Emmanuel Macron. There is a very interesting ‘the day after the revolution’ dynamic. Now that the 68 generation has had control of the system for so long they favor stability and expertise over change. I think that there are two things that have been going on for a while now. First, the 68ers were never as anti establishment as they let on. There is the great Tom Wolf essay ‘Radical chic’ that very much skewers the many establishment figures who aligned themselves with the revolution, it wasn’t that they were anti-establishment as a principle, they simply did not agree with the current one. The second is that age and self interest took a lot of fire out of the belly of even true believers of that generation. The hippies of the 60s and 70s were often the same people in the money obsessed boardroom culture of the 80s and 90s. The boomer generation has had an incredible demographic clout more so than any generation and you can very much see how they shifted that clout as they aged and their desires changed. I suppose I would conclude by saying that it is no surprise the revolution did not hold together. There were always to many disjunctions between factions along economic and ethnic lines for it to remain coherent for long. The upper class students rioting in Paris over access to co-ed dorms were as much a world away from the Prague spring. Same with Americans who went to Woodstock and those protesting segregation in working class Birmingham Alabama.
Responding/ commenting on the ‘Us vs them blog’
I thought this was an interesting blog post. I think that the us vs them mentality is deeply engrained in human psychology and morality. The controversial political theorist Carl Schmitt coined the friend/enemy distinction as the central distinction in politics. Sometimes it can be over economic interests, rich v poor, other times it can be racial, white vs black. What ever the case may be, the distinction between friends and enemies is the central feature of any political conflict. What is to be done then. I suppose we either try and make the right enemies and fight only for just causes. The other option I suppose might be to try and transcend the distinction all together. What would that look like? For King it might mean making our only enemy the devil and people of every color our friends. My political theory professor suggested that we make climate change the enemy and all of humanity our friends
Response:
To Slavery and perspective: I do agree I think the Irish slavery claims are heavily overblown. Is the argument actually that they are still oppressed? I took the argument to be more of a bootstrap argument kind of claim, that is that the Irish too were disdained disliked and oppressed because of their heritage when they arrived here in America and that through buying into the culture and working hard they achieved social acceptance so as not to be oppressed. Certainly chattel slavery was much worse but does that mean that indentured servitude was not a harsh and exploitative practice used to take advantage of the poor of Ireland?
A revolution against who and what?
I was intrigued by something I heard the other week from the UK 68ers we heard from. I found it quite humorous when one of them called out Bill Clinton who was at Oxford at the time for not being a real 68er. That must have been quite a time to be alive in the UK. Their parents generation was one that grew up in an empire that ruled a large part of the known world. By the time they came of age that empire had fallen apart, hit rock bottom and what few possession were left, like Northern Ireland, posed nothing but problems. Despite being one of the original bearers of the liberal tradition the UK also has an ancient regime of aristocracy and of church and state. It seems like there was a lot of weariness with the old regime.
One thing that puzzled me was when the lady who was speaking to us started bemoaning Brexit. She was talking about advocating for ‘the peoples vote’ to overturn Brexit, which I guess poses an interesting question of if its real democracy if the question of membership gets posed over and over again until the elites get the answer that they want. Think what you will of Brexiters, but what kind of radical supports the EU? The EU is the institution of global capital and financial interests. I made the point earlier in the course that the 68ers were not that far from the Reaganites and Thatcherites but where the former advocated for social liberalization the later in the 80s advocated economic liberalization. That is to say that for all of their surface level differences the two camps represent two wings on the same bird of liberalization and liberalism writ large. So I would pose the same question I did earlier in the course, were the 68ers ever really a real threat to the economic establishment? If the corporatism of the 80s and 90s that resulted from the era are any sign, then probably not. For that reason I would argue that for all of his hyperbolic and uncharitable rhetoric about immigration, Enoch Powell was more of a radical and rebel towards the establishment than any of the 68ers we heard from in his staunch, principled opposition to the highly anti-democratic institutions of the European Union. The 68ers were never a real threat to capitalism or the political establishment as the example of former radical Daniel Bendit Cohen in his now vocal support of the technocrat Emmanuel Macron has shown.
Controlling History
Over our last few discussions, I have learned a great amount about specific characters and figures that stood for something greater than themselves. I learned about their sacrifices and the hardships they faced to keep their protests peaceful. The quote “You have to be twice as good to get half as much” has stuck with me recently as a lens to look through in order to understand the hardships so many people dealt with and still face today. However despite the great figures we have learned about and the informative presentations we have watched, the idea that has occupied the most space in my mind came about the other day in class. Dr. Kinyon emphasized the inadequate discussion of the Civil Rights movement in the American education system. Though a targeted portrayal of history had been something I did not consider unlikely in American education, until recently I had never given the idea proper thought.
While there are many things to be proud of in American history, slavery, segregation, and the need for a grand movement for black equality clearly do not fall into this group. America grew and became what is today in large part thanks to the help of great amounts of slave labor. The heroes of the civil rights movement were not treated or thought of as heroes by many white Americans just around sixty years ago. American wars and scuffles are discussed for weeks in classrooms while the fight of a whole race for equality is often glossed over. The civil rights movement made incredible strides towards their goal for equality, but it is evident today that this goal is yet to be reached in it’s entirety. While crucial change and reform is being called for in policing and the workplace, it is important to seek the same progress in the history we teach to the next generation(s).
Peace
Dr. King is obviously admirable for a multitude of reasons. However, I am most impressed with his resilient commitment to nonviolence. Time and again he was mistreated— I cannot begin to imagine the stress and frustration he must have felt. The FBI, an entity intended to protect and serve, urged him to commit suicide. His house was bombed. He was jailed several times. It must have felt as if the whole world was against him. His mission was not only good and just, but also empirically right. His belief that all men are created equal is simply fact. To be so dramatically opposed whilst knowing that you are right is incredibly frustrating under any circumstance. Add in all the abuse that he endured and it is remarkable that he remained committed to peace throughout his life.
I feel this sentiment can be connected to today. I understand the present frustration from the black community over police brutality. I therefore also acknowledge that it is unreasonable to expect a completely peaceful reaction each time a black person is killed by police. I do not condone the violence that has occurred, nor do I feel that it is just. Rather, I simply feel that it should be expected. The marginalization of black people is utterly unjust. To expect an entire community, mistreated and forced to live on the periphery, to act peacefully and rationally one-hundred percent of the time is simply foolish. We must accept that violence is a consequence of the injustices that we as a society allow to occur. If we wish to see violence snuffed out, we must be committed to reform.