Journal of Black Studies44(8) 779 –797

© The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0021934713516860

jbs.sagepub.com

Article

Between Colorblind and Colorconscious: Contemporary Hollywood Films and Struggles Over Racial Representation

Jason Smith1

AbstractHollywood films reflect the racial order in which they are made. The sociological significance of understanding racial representations within films is highlighted in this study as it recognizes that films offer a useful site for contentious views of the racial order—colorblind and colorconscious—to be played out. Focusing on films with an African American actor and/or actress, this study will highlight how actors and actresses in these films demonstrate the pervasiveness of racial inequality, as well as how the films still maintain a colorblind framework. Although the colorblind framework persists, acknowledging the presence of colorconscious themes is a new perspective that can help challenge the colorblind framework.

KeywordsAfrican Americans, motion pictures, colorblind, colorconscious, racial politics, popular culture

Within the realm of popular culture, the concept of race has always been a contentious issue. When combined with other structural forces, such as class

1George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:Jason Smith, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, 3G5, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. Email: jsm5@gmu.edu

516860 JBS44810.1177/0021934713516860Journal of Black StudiesSmithresearch-article2013

780 Journal of Black Studies 44(8)

and gender, racial representations have worked to support the status quo. The most prevalent site of popular culture where this tension is evident is the film industry. For African Americans, the representations that have appeared have ranged from the overt racist imagery seen in The Birth of a Nation to the covert modern-day rehashings of old stereotypes as seen in “Magical Negro” films (e.g., The Green Mile). As the film industry is largely dominated by White-male producers, writers, and executives, oppositional challenges to such representations are situated on the margins of the industry, slowly work-ing their way into its center. Although power and leadership in the contempo-rary mainstream Hollywood film industry is led by White men (Christopherson, 2008), significant in-roads have been made by Black actors, actresses, and directors—leveraging that position for more power on the sets of Hollywood films. Thus, today Hollywood films are contestable spaces, a battleground even, for the racial representations seen on the silver screen. It is clear that as the level of Black star power grows within the industry, African American representations display more variance than in the past.

Hollywood films are reflections of the times in which they are made, whereby the racial representations that audiences see will adhere to the racial order of the given moment. Yet the perspectives that Black actors and actresses bring to the table play a role in shifting how that racial order is pre-sented. This study will focus on the ways in which Hollywood films, that feature a Black actor and/or actress in a leading role, may depict and repre-sent elements of colorblindness or, its opposite, colorconsciousness. In addi-tion, this article will highlight the advances that actors and actresses in these films have made in demonstrating the pervasiveness of racial inequality, as well as how the films still maintain a colorblind framework. Finally, this analysis will point to some evidence of transformation, in that several films seem to represent a subtle shifting in the colorblind framework.

The Colorblind and the Colorconscious

To study the media sociologically, an emphasis must be placed on the part played by the structure of society and the external social forces that define how roles are created and enacted (Grazian, 2010; McQuail, 1985; Turner, 2006). McQuail (1985) noted early on that the media is not a neutral channel, but that messages are derived from theories, traditions, norms, and practices belonging to complex social institutions. Therefore, to understand how African Americans are portrayed in Hollywood films is to situate those por-trayals in a historical context which takes into account the racialized structure of American society. The trajectory of America’s racially stratified society—from slavery, to emancipation, to Jim Crow racism and overt racist practices,

Smith 781

to the civil rights movement, to the post-Civil Right era—reflects race as a dynamic process (James, 2001; Omi & Winant, 1986; Winant, 1994). As a dynamic process, race is situated as a crucial variable in political struggle, where racial definitions and identities are not only socially constructed but also intricately linked to ongoing social, economic, and political structures of society. In regard to language and culture, Stuart Hall reflects this perspective when he referred to race as “the floating signifier,” in which racial meanings become subject to constant redefinition and appropriation (Media Education Foundation, 1997). For African Americans, successful ongoing gains in achieving civil rights and dismantling structural impediments to equality are part of political struggle. However, Howard Winant (1994) stated, paradoxi-cally, that although the Black movement of the 1950s and 1960s ended an era of racial domination, it initiated an era of racial hegemony. He further noted,

The achievements and legacy of the black movement were hardly met with universal acclaim . . . since the movement’s introduction of new political themes could not be undone, opponents had to learn how to manage these political themes as well. (Winant, 1994, pp. 26-27)

Historian Bruce Schulman (2008) extended Winant’s argument by assert-ing that the backlash against the progressive movements of the 1960s used those movements’ own tools against them, “drawing on their example, con-servatives constructed their own grassroots organizations, developed a pow-erfully resonant anti-institutional, anti-bureaucratic message, and sometimes even embraced activist government as a vehicle for their political ambitions” (p. 699). The retreat from race-centered civil rights during the 1980s and 1990s (Klinker & Smith, 1999; Steinberg, 1995) has constructed the contem-porary setting as one which positions itself as post-racial. Despite the racial tensions that took place throughout these decades, the proliferation of pro-gressive images of African Americans in television and film have played some role in establishing the post-race framework (Artz, 2003; Gray, 1995; Leonard, 2006). Within this post-racial framework, colorblindness can be seen as a discursive tool to discount the significance of race in the United States. As Bonilla-Silva (2010) has proposed, colorblindness stands in con-trast to the recognition of the embedded nature of race in social institutions; this colorblind racism thus allows and justifies the persistence of racial inequality. Colorblindness can thus be seen as a political tool in which racial privileges are maintained. However, as race is a dynamic process, the struc-tures and circumstances representing and indicating colorblindness are con-tinually being transformed by a host of racial events which are contested by various groups (Doane, 2007).

782 Journal of Black Studies 44(8)

Although the election of President Barack Obama speaks to the progress America has made on some level, it is mistakenly used to signify that America is post-racial—where the cultural logic behind President Obama’s election is one that masks the power relations which maintain structural inequalities sur-rounding race (Robinson, 2009). As a political tool, colorblindness may be used and implemented by those who most benefit by its existence. It stands to reason, therefore, that the oppositional political tool for combating color-blindness would be colorconsciousness. As racial events unfold, the goal for colorconsciousness is to (a) expose the assumed neutrality of Whiteness, (b) validate the experiences and perspectives of people of color, (c) name racist practices, and (d) point out institutional racism (adapted from Ullucci & Battey, 2011). Given the recent focus on colorblindness and its sociological significance, it is instructive to probe the research projects which might best explain or examine its existence. A study of films, as important cultural vehi-cles, may well be the best approach to illustrate the presence, or absence, of colorblindness in contemporary society.

(Re)Visiting Hollywood Film and Racial Representation

Although recent studies of Hollywood films have explored the extent to which unequal representations promote racial exclusion and the maintenance of White privilege (Hughey, 2009; Lipsitz, 1998; Moore & Pierce, 2007; Vera & Gordon, 2003), they serve to depict the degree to which the oppressor/oppressed dynamics exist. Speaking to this dynamic, Hughey (2009) pointed to a structure of “cinethetic racism,” which espouses anti-Black stereotypes and White heteronormative narratives. This cinethetic racism reflects the contemporary colorblind perspective on race. But this view leaves out how colorblind ideology might be challenged. This often taken-for-granted defini-tion of hegemony, in which there is a “general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group” (Gramsci, 1971/2005, p. 12), runs throughout such studies. Overlooked in this theoretical stance is the process of hegemony—a recognition that ideology is not directly imposed, but is car-ried out through shifting alliances and compromises between individuals and groups (Chambers, 1986). Explaining the hegemony process, Hawley (1980) pointed out that the goal of Gramsci’s conception of hegemony was not just the direct imposition of ideals and beliefs but also the reintroduction of will and individual consciousness as they interact with mediated messages and images from the dominating group(s). Hawley notes that Gramsci was inter-ested in the level of agency given back to those who make use of the cultural

Smith 783

outlets and mediums that make up daily life. This focus on racial hegemony displays a process in which issues of racial inequality are fought over, not merely imposed, as had been the case prior to the Civil Rights era.

While in agreement with Hughey on the structure of systemic racism in the production of Hollywood films, the means by which individuals and groups alter dominant discourse is key to changing and transforming this structure. Although the research cited above centers our gaze on the impor-tance of film as an instrument in maintaining racial inequity, the political aspects of cultural representation (i.e., contested spaces of representation) that occur on the screen remain understudied. Speaking on the medium of television, Joshua Gamson’s (1999) focus on the “tightrope of visibility” makes note of this contested space:

This is not a losing game for the individuals and populations getting attention, but neither is it a winning one . . . becoming visible through the commercial media is, for marginalized populations, something like walking a tight rope: dangers await if you fall, some glory if you make it across, and there’s not much to keep you in balance. (p. 214)

The tightrope image is significant for the understanding of racial represen-tations in Hollywood films. Rather than solely focusing on the direct imposi-tion that these films make regarding the maintenance of White privilege, which is not being disputed, this article is interested in the racial representa-tions that are made by Black actors and actresses in opposition to the racial status quo. As Gamson’s research shows, it is expected that marginal groups will not be able to change the status quo overnight, but they can take advan-tage of the spaces they are in to make political gains.

Method

As noted earlier, power relations in Hollywood are largely unequal. This inequality leads to films which depict African Americans in minor and ste-reotyped ways. Black actors and actresses work within confined areas of Hollywood to produce results which alter these racial positions. Given that these in-roads exist, more social science research is required to describe and explain the changing landscape. As the unit of analysis will be motion pic-tures, the most appropriate method for this research is a content analysis. However, due to the unequal distribution of power in Hollywood it is hard to generalize from findings in which a limited number of cases—outlined below—can be drawn. An interpretive approach to content analysis was used to collect data in this study (Altheide, 1987; Berg & Lune, 2012; Charmaz,

784 Journal of Black Studies 44(8)

2008). This approach adheres to pre-established categories and variables—colorblind and colorconscious, outlined below—while allowing for new ideas to emerge (Altheide, 1987), which are related back to the literature and the broader concerns of the research question (Berg & Lune, 2012). Throughout the coding stage, the researcher coded for colorblind and color-conscious variables, but was reflexive in viewing the films and engaged in a constant comparison between them throughout the coding process as well as rewatching films to verify concepts. This approach allowed the researcher to be both systematic and analytic.

Sampling and coding were completed in the summer of 2009, drawing from blockbuster films produced during 1989-2009 period. This span of 20 years was chosen to represent films that have been made during two decades of contentious racial politics in the United States (Cho, 2009; Steinberg, 1995) and to reflect a more contemporary sample. Movies classified as block-busters were those that had United States box-office returns of over US$100 million. The sampling of blockbuster films was chosen because they often rely on recycled film techniques and narratives in order to achieve the max revenue from theatrical release (Baker & Faulkner, 1991). Blockbuster films also are the most visible films within the larger public—drawing both adora-tion and criticism. In order to assess challenges to colorblindness, films which feature a Black actor/actress in the top-five billing listings are also a sampling requirement. Taking the exclusions into account left a population of 82 films, in which a random sample of 25 films was drawn (see Table 1).

Assessing Colorblindness and Colorconsciousness

I have drawn on scholarship which has probed the relationship between post-racialism and films, using these insights to develop a framework for acknowl-edging colorblindness in films. In addition, in order to assess the presence of colorconsciousness among characters played by Black actors and actresses in these films, I referred back to the sociological literature which highlights the structural elements of racism in contemporary America.

How Black characters deal with their socially given roles within the film works to observe whether colorblindness or colorconsciousness is evident. Crucial to colorblind ideology is the idea that individuals have the ability to make it on their own, without the assistance of others. In addition, the lack of connection with the Black community is important to keep in mind while viewing these films, given that the social isolation they represent is unthreat-ening to White heteronormativity (Gates, 2004; Haggins, 2003). Another fea-ture of the colorblind ideology is the interracial buddy formula, which uses fictional friendships to ignore institutionalized racism (Artz, 2003; Thornton,

Smith 785

2011). As colorblindness seeks to individualize race and ignore the inequali-ties that are linked to it, the process of coding colorconsciousness seeks to make apparent the ways in which race is a factor in the daily lives of Black characters. Coding for colorconsciousness relied on opposite measures of those for colorblindness. For example, actions of Black characters to make apparent the structural dimensions of racial inequality were worked into the coding of colorconsciousness throughout the viewing of these films. Open and descriptive coding, sometimes extending beyond the boundaries of the previously created categories, was utilized to capture the blending of the col-orblind and colorconscious aspects portrayed in these films. The main focus

Table 1. List of Films in Study.

Film titleProduction company Year

Box-office revenue (in U.S. dollars)

2 Fast 2 Furious Universal 2003 127,154,901The 40-Year-Old Virgin Universal 2005 109,449,237American Gangster Universal 2007 130,164,645Bringing Down the House Touchstone 2003 132,716,677Collateral Dreamworks 2004 101,005,703Daddy Day Care Columbia/TriStar 2003 104,297,061Doctor Dolittle 20th Century Fox 1998 144,156,605Enemy of the State Touchstone 1998 111,549,836Eraser Warner Brothers 1996 101,295,562Evan Almighty Universal 2007 100,462,298Ghost Paramount 1990 217,631,306Hancock Sony Pictures 2008 227,946,274Hitch Columbia/TriStar 2005 179,495,555Jerry Maguire Columbia/TriStar 1996 153,952,592Lethal Weapon 3 Warner Brothers 1992 144,731,527The Matrix Warner Brothers 1999 171,479,930The Matrix Reloaded Warner Brothers 2003 281,576,461Mission: Impossible II Paramount 2000 215,409,889Ocean’s Thirteen Warner Brothers 2007 117,154,724Rush Hour New Line Cinema 1998 141,186,864Star Wars: Episode III 20th Century Fox 2005 380,270,577The Sum of All Fears Paramount 2002 118,907,036Traffic USA Home

Entertainment2000 124,115,725

X2: X-men United 20th Century Fox 2003 214,949,694X-Men: The Last Stand 20th Century Fox 2006 234,362,462

786 Journal of Black Studies 44(8)

centered on the interaction between characters of different races and how race was understood and experienced between those characters.

The following two sections highlight the struggle between colorblind and colorconscious representations in these films. Both sections are contextually based, given that the focus of this study is the contested space that Hollywood films provide for racial representations, and that the interpretive nature of this method is more focused on the context presented in these films rather than generalizability. In order to probe these representations, they are explained through paying attention to the social settings in which characters interact, as well as the shared struggles these characters experience throughout the films. It is through these two dimensions that Black characters in these films walk the line between colorblind and colorconscious presentations.

Interacting in Social Settings

A contemporary reality of America is a society where legalized racial segre-gation is no longer present or accepted by a majority of the population. The other side of this coin is the recognition of embedded racial segregation prac-tices, such as residential segregation, that exists despite the presence of a large number of Blacks in more integrated social settings than in the past (Adelman, 2004; Ford, 2011; Iceland & Wilkes, 2006). Within the films stud-ied, there is a mixing of the social worlds of Black and White characters—most vividly in the workplace, residency, and friendship groups. The social settings of these films provide context to the interactions of the characters, as well as recognizable spaces in which audiences can view them. Colorblind and colorconscious actions vary in such spaces.

The films depict a variety of places where characters came into contact, although most focus on the workplace. The ideas of colorblindness and col-orconsciousness exist as two opposite ends of a spectrum in which the images and narratives of these films fall in between. The fully colorblind or the fully colorconscious does not exist in any of the social settings. What does appear in the films is a complex image of the ways in which colorblindness and col-orconsciousness are exemplified within certain social contexts and settings. This complexity explains why in those films Blacks are seen as both encroach-ing upon spaces and/or a part of those spaces.

Workplace

In a number of films, characters interact in desegregated workplaces. Desegregated workplaces exist in films such as Dr. Dolittle, Enemy of the State, Eraser, Rush Hour, The Sum of All Fears, and Traffic, which exemplify

Smith 787

the notion that Blacks are in positions comparable with Whites—positions such as doctors, lawyers, and police officers. The mere presence of the Black characters raises no alarms or causes any problems for their fellow co-work-ers. Yet a distinct absence of discussions about home life is an important characteristic of the Black characters in relation to their White co-workers. Other than their one White co-worker friend, Black characters in the work-place generally have no one with whom to share their concerns. This isolation is seen, for example, in the film Dr. Dolittle in which John Dolittle, amid the selling of his successful medical practice to a large medical company, becomes burdened with finding out he can talk to animals while also trying to find time to devote to his family. Although the addition of a supernatural ability is added to the narrative, John is forced to undergo the stress and physical inconvenience of performing needed daily activities by himself. While throughout the film he is able to vent his frustrations verbally to the animals with which he comes into contact, he is utterly alone in the work-place. Likewise, in Enemy of the State, Robert Dean works as a successful lawyer in a prestigious Washington, D.C., law firm, in which he is almost completely alone. His personal and home life kept separate from his work-place. Despite being friends with a fellow White lawyer at his firm, when his world is turned upside down by the antagonists of the film, Robert’s friend becomes non-existent, and only when information out of context about his life is brought to the firm’s attention do they take notice of it by firing Robert. The extent to which Blacks enter the workplace in these films is limited; they live a contained and lonely existence that is often marginal, and to a certain degree, separated from Whites.

Workplace and the Home

Other films observed depicted interracial settings both in the workplace and in the home of the characters. Due to racial mixing and interaction both at work and in the home (or community), more interracial friendships were seen in these films. Films which demonstrated this were 40 Year Old Virgin, Bringing Down the House, Daddy Day Daycare, Jerry Maguire, and Lethal Weapon 3. The common thread throughout these films was the use of the buddy formula—where the interracial friendships exhibited were usually kept one-on-one; that is, between the White main character and his one Black friend, with the exception of Daddy Day Care where the tables were turned and a Black male was the main character. The interracial friendships in these films, like the films which only displayed interracial mixture in the work-place, are kept within certain boundaries. However, these boundaries are less rigid than films which depict an interracial workplace. The singularity of the

788 Journal of Black Studies 44(8)

Black friend heightens their presence yet also allows moments of deep color-consciousness to emerge.Certain films (40 Year Old Virgin and Daddy Day Care) ignored racial issues, while others walked a fine line of joking about race and discussing racial matters. Bringing Down the House and Jerry Maguire had moments in which colorconsciousness was apparent—whether it is Charlene (Bringing Down the House) commenting that Whites refuse to step outside what they deem acceptable, or Rod (Jerry Maguire) commenting that he has to “dance” for National Footbal League corporate executives—but positioned such issues in contradictory terms. Most notable in this regard was the film Bringing Down the House. The contact between Peter, a successful White-male law-yer, and Charlene, a Black female who is an escaped convict, walks the fine line of joking/discussing racial issues. Peter’s social world takes place in an upper-middle-class environment—ranging from the high rise city law firm, the exclusive country club, and the pristine suburban neighborhood. The introduction of Charlene, from the moment she first appears on Peter’s door-step and greets him with a swerve of the head and shoulders, is a break in this social world. Various jokes throughout the film are made at Charlene’s expense. She has to play along in order to stay in this social world. An exam-ple of such an occurrence is when Charlene surprises Peter at his country club and the only reason Peter can give to explain her presence there is to say she is his children’s nanny. While giving into Peter’s plea to play along, Charlene responds,

Yessir. Now I’m gonna go on down to the pool wit the child’n, maybe we can make fun of the White folks again, huh kids?

While giving into Peter’s needs to “keep her under wraps,” Charlene exhibits her own form of resistance that calls out both Peter’s and his fellow Whites’ subtle forms of discrimination. The use of a satirical southern dialect that alludes to the pre-Civil Rights era to address Peter’s actions creates a counterpoint to the contemporary setting in which the film takes place. By invoking this dialect, Charlene is able to signal the institutionalized racism that is present at the country club—where the presence of a Black female can only be described by her position as a caretaker. Examples like this occur throughout the film, and comedy is often introduced to negate its serious impacts, operating in a context of “hyper-irony and manic-satire” (Hughey & Muradi, 2009)—where the line between authentic and satirical racism is blurred. However, the contact between Charlene and Peter is one that pushes the boundaries of understanding one another. Peter’s assumptions of Charlene are transformed over the course of the film as he realizes that his position and status offer him many privileges. While this element of colorconsciousness is

Smith 789

present, it still is placed within a colorblind framework in which it is an indi-vidualistic understanding of race—where the individual comes to grips with his or her own racial standpoint, not the structural (Bonilla-Silva, 1996) ways in which race is perpetuated in society.

Encroaching on White Residence

Noted earlier in these films were the complex ways in which Blacks can be a part of the social settings, while encroaching on these social settings. The boundaries set forth for the Black characters in a number of these films have allotted room for colorconscious moments to emerge, although confined to more dominant colorblind frames. As previously stated, in the film Bringing Down the House there is a clear sense of the “fish out of water” (Haggins, 2003) role that Charlene fulfills. Whites housed in these defined spaces of Whiteness react in an exclusionary manner toward those of color. As Blacks enter these areas, defenses arise, leading to questioning why they should be there. Part and parcel of the colorblind framework though, it is not because these characters are Black that they are not allowed in these spaces, but rather due to various defects within the individual.One strategy for hiding this exclusion is the use of “exceptional exceptions” (Chito Childs, 2009) that in some ways reflect the best among dominant cul-ture practices. Black characters who are already present in these settings, but who exhibit extreme characteristics that distinguish them from other Blacks, are used to maintain a colorblind ideology in which their presence proves that color does not matter. This dynamic is best demonstrated in the film Lethal Weapon 3, an action film centered on two cops which makes extensive use of the interracial buddy formula. Roger Murtaugh is a Black police officer and family man, who lives in a suburban neighborhood in Los Angeles. The well-rounded and loving Murtaughs are a positive image of a Black family which would defy traditional stereotypes of the past, but when the film throws in the threat of Black gangs entering the neighborhood, the effect of the colorblind framework is intensified. Roger and his family are the only Black family in this otherwise all-White neighborhood. When the threat of the Black gang enters the picture, it falls upon Roger to fix the problem. Throughout a major-ity of the film, Roger’s partner, Martin Riggs (the main White character of the film) is the one “jumping into action.” However, after Roger shoots a Black teenage gang member, in a case of being fired upon first by the teen, he becomes, for a brief period, the “man of action” in the film. Attending the funeral of the teenager he shot, Roger is slapped in the face by the boy’s mother when he tries to offer his condolences, to which the boy’s father says,

790 Journal of Black Studies 44(8)

You want to do something Sergeant Murtaugh? You find the man that put the gun in my son’s hand.

This encounter throws Roger into the forefront of the action for the next few scenes, for now he is responsible for tracing the leads to the selling of illegal firearms throughout Los Angeles. Roger’s exceptional status is accented in a scene in which he interrogates a Black criminal:

Roger: “Where did this gun come from?”Criminal: “Fuck you!”Roger: “Ever heard of the word “genocide?” Have you, stupid motherfucker? Have you heard of genocide? You fools are killing yourselves! You’re killing us! I’m tired of it! I’m tired of it!”

This individualized moment, accentuated by Roger stating “I’m tired of it!” thrust the problems of crime faced by inner-city Blacks upon the Black community’s shoulders. During the scene, the camera angel also shows Martin standing beside the car, face hidden under his arm as he appears to be peeking over it to watch Roger. Hazel Carby (1998) has commented on this same film, and in particular the tension that exists between the two characters in relation to Roger’s shooting of the teen and his immediate reaction to it. As Martin finds Roger drunk on his boat, each character’s personal turmoil is brought to the forefront—Martin upset his partner will be retiring and abandoning him, Roger over his shooting of the teen. Carby (1998) noted that this tension “creates and reproduces on the screen a contemporary political anxiety: that black America, having demanded and gained equality, has somehow betrayed the white and middle-class American that graciously acceded to these demands” (p.186). Martin’s background presence in these scenes further adds to the image that gang/inner-city violence is up to Blacks to solve. The exceptional status of Roger, who has “made it” to a middle-class suburban life, shows that Black crime is individualized and hints at a Black subculture of violence. Colorblindness is both exhibited and main-tained in this example, as structural reasons why inner-city violence and segregation occur are left out of the picture (Feldmeyer, 2010; Massey, 1999). Other films which featured exceptional Blacks, although not to the extreme and depth of Lethal Weapon 3, were Doctor Dolittle, Hitch, and The Sum of All Fears. Within these films, the exceptional exception frame works to normalize Black characters—making them suitable for spaces of White residence, that is, only if they display certain characteristics.

Smith 791

Shared Struggles

As described above, the social settings in which these films take place have very clear boundaries. While colorconsciousness is alluded to in certain instances, it is overshadowed by the dominant colorblind framework. The second contextual category of these films is the way that Black and White characters aid one another. Distinct from earlier historical blocs of Hollywood films, contemporary films show Black and White characters in a reciprocal relationship of aiding one another. Often Blacks served as secondary charac-ters in past films, placed there for the purposes of aiding the main White character. Although in a majority of the films viewed in this study the main character was White, and was aided by a Black character in various parts throughout the film, Whites also engaged in helping their fellow Black char-acters in these films.

This reciprocity of help that a number of these characters display, speaks to the current social context in which these films are made; seeking to display equality in the midst of racial disparities. However, what marks the distinc-tion between the colorblind and the colorconscious is the way in which help is received and/or given. Glenn and Cunningham (2009) noted how one of the characteristics of the contemporary magical negro stereotype in film is the magical negro’s ability to appropriate folk wisdom to aide in alleviating the problems that Whites face. An interesting twist occurs in films where Whites are aiding Blacks; contrary to the use of folk wisdom, Whites use rational-discourse and methodical thinking to address the problems Black characters have. This distinguishing mark is what aides in the perpetuation of a dominating colorblind discourse that serves to redress the importance of race while still maintaining a racial status quo of White privilege. Despite the reciprocal undertakings of aide the characters engage in throughout these films, the methods used by the White characters still uphold a “possessive investment in whiteness” (Lipsitz, 1998)—in which “whiteness” becomes synonymous with rational thought and “blackness” with folk wisdom—that works to mask/distort the claims of Black characters in the solving of prob-lems occurring in the films.

When Max Weber (1960) discussed the concept of legitimate authority, he distinguished a conventional form of it as maintaining its validity through a collective “probability that deviation from it . . . will be met with relatively general and significantly perceptible disapproval” (p. 75). Operating on claims to authority through the use of both class and status, White characters maintain their legitimate authority as they aid the Black characters in these films. In films such as Bringing Down the House, Hancock, and Jerry Maguire, when Whites aided or worked alongside Black characters, they did

792 Journal of Black Studies 44(8)

so through legitimate methods that connected them to conventional forms of authority. For example, when Peter is asked by Charlene for help in clearing a false criminal record, it is Peter’s legal knowledge and connections as a high-priced lawyer that are relied upon to do so (Bringing Down the House); Roy relies on his expertise as a public relations expert and connections to the corporate world to “remake” Hancock into a superhero (Hancock); Jerry’s status as a sport agent and knowledge of the law to get Rod a better contract deal (Jerry Maguire). In contrast to these, Black characters in these films all relied on variations of their folk wisdom and magical abilities to aid their fel-low White characters overcome moral hurdles and sometimes undergo life-changing events/decisions—removed from forms of legitimate authority in contemporary society. When Black characters have access to legitimate forms of authority, such as in the films Enemy of the State and Eraser, the use of rational thought seems to evade them. Instead, the two Black characters in these films are reliant upon other White characters with access to legitimate authority to come to their rescue—further restraining Black character use or engagement with dominating power structures.

The film Hitch was the only film to have a complete reversal of the White “thinker” and “feeling” Black characters. The premise of this film featured Hitch, a Black male, as a dating consultant for (mainly) White men. Having perfected the art of dating, Hitch proceeded to give clients a “step-by-step how to” in land-ing the women of their dreams. In comparison with Rod from Jerry Maguire, who assisted Jerry to tap into his emotions and feelings, Hitch has largely removed this aspect from the solution to the problem by the use of rational thought. In the opening scene of the film, which posits that women are always wanting to be swept off their feet, Hitch breaks up this sense of romance by stating,

Basic principles . . . No woman wakes up saying, “God, I hope I don’t get swept off my feet today” . . . You believe that? Neither does she. You know why? Because she’s lying to you, that’s why . . . It’s not a bad time for her. She doesn’t need any space. She may be into her career . . . but what she’s really saying is, “Get away from me now.” Or possibly, “Try harder, stupid.” Well, which one is it?

60% of all human communication is nonverbal. Body language. 30% is your tone. So that means that 90% of what you’re saying . . . ain’t coming out of your mouth. Luckily, the fact is that just like the rest of us . . . even a beautiful woman doesn’t know what she wants until she sees it. And that’s where I come in. My job is to open her eyes.

This use of a pseudo-scientific method to assist in acquiring love from women by Hitch is employed throughout the film: acting a specific

Smith 793

way, talking about certain topics, and engaging in certain activities. Like a majority of romantic comedies though, it ends with the “true meaning of love” that places emphasis on the feelings that one has for the other person (e.g., Neale, 1992). However, in order for Hitch to come to that full realiza-tion requires the insight of a White male who forgoes all of Hitch’s advice near the end of the film and gets his dream girl—to which Hitch then follows suit and lands his own love interest. However, what is unique in this case is that Hitch, while utilizing rational thought, lacks any access to legitimate authority, similar to other Black characters in films in which they rely on folk wisdom. His skills and services are offered entrepreneurially rather than being based in an occupation that links his status with existing power struc-tures such as the state or economy, which require advanced degrees and high levels of social, cultural, and economic capital. Although Hitch has made a comfortable living for himself—seen in the film through his access to fancy New York City apartments and activities such as jet skiing to the Statue of Liberty on a first date—his status is merely based on individualized talents and characteristics in the economic world, not in relation to access to any means of structural power.

Similar to past films, the helper status of Blacks in relation to Whites is exclusionary in the sense that positions of power are often reserved for White characters (e.g., Hughey, 2012). Although some Black characters were in positions of power, in films such as Star Wars: Episode III and the Matrix films, their authority was largely still dependent on supernatural abilities, rather than rational and material means. Or, when able to gain access to legiti-mate authority, Black characters were unable to utilize it (as in films such as Enemy of the State and Eraser). The helper reversal and shared sense of struggle that occurs in these contemporary films operates mainly within the realm of colorblindness. While the social settings of the films allowed for a mixture of colorblind and colorconscious portrayals to intersect, the methods by which the Black and White characters engaged and aided one another failed to allow colorconscious portrayals to emerge.

Conclusion

This study looked at the ways in which colorblindness is both maintained and opposed in contemporary Hollywood films. Elements of colorconsciousness assist in creating avenues for alternative presentations to be displayed on the screens of theaters, home television sets, computer screens, and mobile devices. Consistent with theories of hegemonic control and representation in regard to culture, the ability for Black actors and actresses to create displays of colorconsciousness in film is competing with larger discourses of

794 Journal of Black Studies 44(8)

colorblindness. This limits the scope and impact of a colorconsciousness which challenges individualized definitions of race, racism, and inequality. It is ironic, though, to find that stereotyped portrayals in certain contemporary films allowed room for a colorconscious framework to emerge and take some shape. Most notable in this regard was the film Bringing Down the House, especially the ways in which the character Charlene utilized old-fashioned stereotypes to expose the structural racial practices that exist in contemporary society. Further research on the inversion of stereotypes needs to be under-taken in order to understand it fully and what it means for issues of represen-tation in contemporary films. The fact that this film was also a comedy speaks to the complex nature of humor when dealing with racial politics; although humor can be useful for African Americans in dealing with oppressive forces (Boskin, 1997), the gains provided by humor can be offset when comedies are the only outlet giving that space for such commentary (Cooper, 2007). In addition, the shared sense of struggles that Black and White characters undergo in these films point to a dynamic that has the potential for opening doors to more colorconscious themes and situations.

The break from White led narratives is still a new and potentially revolu-tionary change in contemporary Hollywood film. These gains are only real-ized, however, once certain obstacles that adhere to a colorblind ideology are overcome—primarily the lack of access to legitimate authority that Black characters have and the highly individualized nature of Hollywood storytell-ing. The shifting of racial images in the films studied point to both a complex and fluid dynamic through which race relations are carried out. While still maintaining a colorblind ideology, they point to less rigid boundaries of con-trol and exclusion in which in-roads can be made to break up systems of White privilege—presenting potential for Feagin’s (2010) call toward a reframing of racial hierarchies. Although elements of colorconsciousness are brief, highlighting their presence in these mainstream, blockbuster films is a research project worth elaborating. In the past, critical images and discourses of race were left to films which were specifically targeted to racially under-represented audiences (Chaisson, 2000; Entman & Rojecki, 2000), thereby making these films marginal and not seen by White audiences. A space once occupied solely by Whites, Hollywood-produced blockbuster films are undergoing a unique transformation in the ways that race is conceived and portrayed.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Rutledge Dennis, Shannon Davis, and Joseph Scimecca for their guidance through this research project. Additional thanks to Woody Doane

Smith 795

and David LoConto for comments and suggestions on an earlier draft, and to the jour-nal reviewers of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-tion of this article.

References

Adelman, R. M. (2004). Neighborhood opportunities, race, and class: The black mid-dle class and residential segregation. City & Community, 3, 43-63.

Altheide, D. L. (1987). Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10, 65-77.

Artz, B. L. (2003). Hegemony in black and white: Interracial buddy films and the new racism. In Y. R. Kamalipour & T. Carilli (Eds.), Cultural diversity and the U.S. media (pp. 67-78). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (1991). Role as resource in the Hollywood films industry. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 279-309.

Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (1996). Rethinking racism: Toward a structural interpretation. American Sociological Review, 62, 465-480.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2010). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the per-sistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Boskin, J. (1997). African-American humor: Resistance and retaliation. In J. Boskin (Ed.), The Humor Prism in 20th Century America (pp. 145-158). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

Carby, H. V. (1998). Race men. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Chaisson, R. L. (2000). For entertainment purposes only? An analysis of the struggle

to control filmic representations. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Chambers, I. (1986). Popular culture: The metropolitan experience. London,

England: Routledge.Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. In J. A.

Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 397-412). New York, NY: Guilford.

Chito Childs, E. (2009). Fade to black and white: Interracial images in popular cul-ture. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Cho, S. (2009). Post-racialism. Iowa Law Review, 94, 1589-1649.

796 Journal of Black Studies 44(8)

Christopherson, S. (2008). Beyond the self-expressive creative worker: An industry perspective on entertainment media. Theory, Culture & Society, 25, 73-95.

Cooper, E. (2007). Is it something he said: The mass consumption of Richard Pryor’s culturally intimate humor. Communication Review, 10, 223-247.

Doane, A. W. (2007). The changing politics of color-blind racism. In R. Coates & R. Dennis (Eds.), The new black: Alternative paradigms and strategies for the 21st century (pp. 159-174). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Entman, R. M., & Rojecki, A. (2000). The black image in the white mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Feagin, J. R. (2010). The white racial frame: Centuries of racial framing and counter-framing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Feldmeyer, B. (2010). The effects of racial/ethnic segregation on Latino and black homicide. Sociological Quarterly, 51, 600-623.

Ford, R. T. (2011). The color of territory: How land and borders keep America seg-regated. In C. R. Hayward & T. Swanstrom (Eds.), Justice and the American metropolis (pp. 223-236). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Gamson, J. (1999). Freaks talk back: Tabloid talk shows and sexual nonconformity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Gates, P. (2004). Always a partner in crime: Black masculinity in the Hollywood detective film. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 32, 20-30.

Glenn, C. L., & Cunningham, L. J. (2009). The power of black magic: The magical negro and white salvation in film. Journal of Black Studies, 40, 135-152.

Gramsci, A. (2005). Selection from the prison notebooks. New York, NY: International Publishers. (Original work published 1971)

Gray, H. (1995). Watching race: Television and the struggle for blackness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Grazian, D. (2010). Mix it up: Popular culture, mass media, and society. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Haggins, B. L. (2003). Laughing mad: The black comedian’s place in American com-edy of the post-civil rights era. In F. Krutnik (Ed.), Hollywood comedians: The film reader (pp. 171-186). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hawley, J. P. (1980). Antonio Gramsci’s marxism: Class, state, and work. Social Problems, 27, 584-600.

Hughey, M. W. (2009). Cinethetic racism: White redemption and black stereotypes in “Magical Negro” films. Social Problems, 56, 543-577.

Hughey, M. W. (2012). Racializing redemption, reproducing racism: The odyssey of magical negroes and white saviors. Sociology Compass, 6, 751-767.

Hughey, M. W., & Muradi, S. (2009). Laughing matters: Economies of hyper-irony and manic-satire in South Park and Family Guy. Humanity & Society, 33, 206-237.

Iceland, J., & Wilkes, R. (2006). Does socioeconomic status matter? Race, class, and residential segregation. Social Problems, 53, 248-273.

James, A. (2001). Making sense of race and racial classification. Race and Society, 4, 235-247.

Klinker, P., & Smith, R. M. (1999). The unsteady march. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Smith 797

Leonard, D. L. (2006). Screens fade to black: Contemporary African American cin-ema. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Lipsitz, G. (1998). The possessive investment in whiteness: How white people profit from identity politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Massey, D. S. (1999). America’s apartheid and the urban underclass. In F. L. Pincus & H. J. Ehrlich (Eds.), Race and ethnic conflict (pp. 125-139). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

McQuail, D. (1985). Sociology of mass communication. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 93-111.

Media Education Foundation. (1997). Race, the floating signifier: Featuring Stuart Hall [Transcript]. Northampton, MA. Retrieved from http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/407/transcript_407.pdf

Moore, W. L., & Pierce, J. (2007). Still killing mocking birds: Narratives of race and innocence in Hollywood’s depiction of the white messiah lawyer. Qualitative Sociology Review, 3, 171-187.

Neale, S. (1992). The big romance or something wild? Romantic comedy today. Screen, 33, 284-299.

Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1986). Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1980s. New York, NY: Routledge.

Robinson, J. N., III. (2009). Coloring the blind spot: The urban black community as an object of racial discourse in the age of Obama. Western Journal of Black Studies, 33, 212-223.

Schulman, B. J. (2008). The empire strikes back—Conservative responses to pro-gressive social movements in the 1970s. Journal of Contemporary History, 43, 695-700.

Steinberg, S. (1995). Turning back: The retreat from racial justice in American thought and policy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Thornton, D. J. (2011). Psych’s comedic tale of black-white friendship and the light-hearted affect of “post-race” America. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 28, 424-449.

Turner, G. (2006). Film as social practice. New York, NY: Routledge.Ullucci, K., & Battey, D. (2011). Exposing color blindness/grounding color con-

sciousness: Challenges for teacher education. Urban Education, 46, 1195-1225.Vera, H., & Gordon, A. M. (2003). Screen saviors: Hollywood fictions of Whiteness.

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Weber, M. (1960). Basic concepts in sociology (H. P. Secher, Trans.). New York,

NY: Citadel Press.Winant, H. (1994). Racial conditions. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Author Biography

Jason Smith is a PhD student in sociology at George Mason University, where he is a graduate lecturer and a research assistant at the Center for Social Science Research. He is currently about to start his dissertation research focusing on diversity policy issues within the media landscape.