Hey Hollywood, Black, Asian, and Latino Men Do Fall In Love!
by guest contributor Rachel Sullivan, originally posted at Rachel’s Tavern
I saw this great post on the All Things Considered Blog about love scenes in the top grossing movies. The author, Steven Barnes, reviewed love scenes in the 350 films that have earned more than $100 million dollars. Barnes found that 50 of these movies had loves scenes, which he operationalizes as scenes that insinuate sex, but not one of those scenes included a male actor who was not white.
From PG through R, from Bond
through Basic Instinct
, you’ll find such scenes in about 15 percent of the most popular films ever made. And every single one features a white guy.
If you scan the same list for American films with non-white leads (again, there are about 50), you’ll find love scenes in zero percent. That’s right, zero. No blacks. No Latinos. No Asians. Hollywood makes such films; you can find them further down on the list. But America won’t watch them.
Barnes goes on to make an argument that I don’t agree with. He says that the problem is about “male territorial behavior,”
I’m convinced that the problem is not just “Hollywood executives.” They’re no better or worse than the rest of us. They simply try to keep track of what the audience wants and rejects, as measured by box office receipts.
And I don’t believe there’s something especially twisted or limited about the white majority. I think this little statistical blip has to do with human perception itself — and most specifically, male territorial behavior.
When confronted with this statistic, some people ask why I don’t count movies such as Will Smith’s delightful Hitch
. Simple: There are no love scenes. Hugs and kisses don’t make babies. I suspect that it’s the depiction of specific reproductive behavior, even at a genteel When Harry Met Sally
level, that triggers the most powerful negative response, especially in male alpha-warrior types.
This is where he and I part ways. This can’t just be reduced to male on male competition, and better analysis would incorporate the structures of race, gender, and sexuality.
I think one of the primary ways that groups are marginalized is through control of their sexuality. The control can be exercised directly through sexual violence (i.e. rape), forced breeding, and coercion. It can been done indirectly through stereotyping and erasure. I think one of the primary ways that Black, Asian, Latino, and American Indian sexuality is controlled today is through what Patricia Hill Collins calls controlling images. Popular movies, TV programs, music, and almost every other major form of popular culture contribute these controlling images when they avoid showing African Americans in intimate, loving relationships. Not only are people of color not shown in loving relationships, we also rarely see intimate family relationships.
There are exceptions such as shows like Soul Food
An Asian man tenderly kissing an Asian woman, or a Black man talking about how he cares for his wife don’t fit well with stereotypes of Karate guys, criminals, and athletes. Showing loving intimate relationships (especially those of a sexual nature) could have a humanizing effect, but continued stereotyping or marginalizing has the opposite effect.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
gaypersonofcolor wrote:
Thanks for posting your thoughts in relation to the original article. I found your comments insightful and elucidating.
Posted 24 Oct 2006 at 8:59 pm ¶
Jay wrote:
So Keanu doesn’t count in this instance (see Matrix 3), Carmen? (Okay, so it’s Rachel’s article, but I’d still like to hear Carmen’s comments.)
I think part of the problem is that the Hollywood formula still needs the star role to have a romance (the supporting role can sometimes get a kiss or two, but no sex), and MoC don’t get star roles. Look at the list again. Will Smith gets 6 or so, Eddie Murphy gets 2, Jackie Chan gets 1 and Morgan Freeman sorta gets 1. That’s around 10 in 350, which is around 3%.
The other problem is that Hollywood never gives women the focus of the story, except for My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which was 1) not a Hollywood film, and 2) pretty much the equivalent of the Joy Luck Club for Greek people, and Sister Act (which needs no explanation) which cuts down on the main love interest role for men (and MoC.)
Posted 24 Oct 2006 at 11:44 pm ¶
Susan Ayoob wrote:
Lost is a wonderful example of a show that portrays characters of color in a complex light. Jin and Sun have a complicated, loving relationship, and Michael and Walter are a father and son trying to mend their broken relationship. Lost is one of the few shows on television that is character-centric and also has a diverse cast.
Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 2:08 am ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
Did someone say Keanu?
Sorry Jay, I don’t think I understand your question. Could you clarify? Thanks!
Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 11:23 am ¶
Jay wrote:
Matrix Revolutions included a Keanu sex scene and I was wondering if you counted him as a “not-white” person in the context of the article, Carmen.
Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 12:55 pm ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
Oh right - that really bad rave scene where they switched to music video mode a la Baywatch.
Well if anyone disagrees, please weigh in, but I don’t think anyone thought of his character in The Matrix series as non-white. Or really, any of the characters he’s played, besides Little Buddha. Since whiteness is normative in the US, when a character’s race is not mentioned, I think people pretty much assume they’re white.
Posted 25 Oct 2006 at 2:45 pm ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
Is the problem that Americans won’t watch non-white men in love scenes, or that the movie studios won’t promote these men? I’d argue that the latter is at least partly responsible for the problem. With their vast movie-making apparatus, studios create stars as much as stars create themselves. If a studio tried to make a Denzel Washington or Will Smith into a romantic lead, I bet it could.
The same issue applies to minority-themed movies in general. And to minority-themed comic books, a field I’m familiar with. Is the problem that Americans won’t watch them or read them? Or is it that studios and publishers won’t create them–and, just as important, market them?
It’s the chicken-and-egg question all over again. The difference is, an egg can’t force a chicken to hatch it. But a chicken can choose to hatch an egg. So the responsibility arguably lies with the creators to create a market for work that features minorities.
Posted 27 Oct 2006 at 9:18 pm ¶
IkoIko wrote:
Radical thought: there are virtually “no” hot sweaty depictions of love at all in Western media anymore, regardless of color. Skip back to that “porn” discussion of yours a couple weeks back…
Libertarian feminist biases aside for the moment, I’m more bothered with the general social malaise I feel media filters to love and sex and gratification for people in their lives and attitudes– regardless of color.
Intimacy and relationships in general are considered as an obligation or a burden or a loss or a need or a function or an appendage when they’re more fundamental and intangible and complex and messier in all senses.
That’s why it so difficult to have this discussion and to reinforce this “otherness”– however well-intentioned– by talking about “people of color” not being represented in something that itself isn’t even largely represented or portrayed “accurately” (as if such a thing were even possible).
So in terms of “love scene”, how would you define it, and what’s more important to you– the act, the people, the context, or the followthrough? Warning: it’s a lot trickier than you think.
There are depictions of people having sex; depictions of people who like each other having sex; depictions of people in love have sex; depictions of people who dislike/loathe/andhate each other having sex — all with varying degrees of familiarity. But that doesn’t cut it for me, because then, you’re no better off than the so-called “porn” and objectification that rankles people.
If it’s demeaning to have people of color reduced to doing these things, why should it be okay for “whites” to doing these things?If it’s not okay for women to participate in these acts, why should it be no less demeaning for men to subject themselves to these things too?
Other line of thought: just as you have physical love, emotional and psychological intimacy needs to be captured among characters, but it’s a risk that few are willing to take and able to really pull off. Screaming and looking brooding and sad is easy, but it’s not the same thing as doing a blank expression during most mechanical and interchangeable physical acts. That goes for any form, any genre.
I, for one, I don’t need to see more people doing it on screen just for the sake of doing it. Moreover I don’t care one way or the other if there are more people of color doing it on screen. If they’re having more fun than I am, and I’m more concerned with it than my own offscreen activites, isn’t something is seriously out of whack?
If the depictions of “love” don’t engage all the senses, then it isn’t a “true” or “fair” depiction of love regardless of who’s portraying it or who’s performing it, plain and simple.
Posted 28 Oct 2006 at 7:20 am ¶
Rob wrote:
Thank you for completely missing the point.
Posted 06 Dec 2006 at 3:44 pm ¶
Rasta wrote:
People, what is the matter here. The reason that people are not into black, asian and latino love making seen especially if the viewer is white is because the majority of white men hate to see someone doing better than them. They have to question themself and try to make themself feel superior. Making love to a white women sometime is special not because she is white, but because she has went her life only believing that a white man can be the one for her. Once a minority, especially a black person of noble character enters here life, she starts to realize that all the teachings and fears about being with a non white puts her higher than any white man can ever provide. This is a true story and will be a true story for any man as long as he knows how to cry.
Posted 25 Dec 2006 at 12:16 am ¶
Kim wrote:
Rachel: Showing loving intimate relationships (especially those of a sexual nature) could have a humanizing effect….
Kim: And I believe that is the core of the issue. If you humanize your ideas and conceptions of those ‘other people,’ you have to consider the fullness of their lives, aspirations, expectations, faith, hurt, etc.
They become more like one’s own self…and then one cannot excoriate, group-blame and group-deny. It forces one into consciousness, that dreaded, avoided state.
Posted 25 Dec 2006 at 1:26 pm ¶
Robert wrote:
I like Chris Rock’s comment during the MTV music Awards. He said something like “by now we’re supposed to be like the Jetsons, but we haven’t even reached the Jeffersons.” I just don’t understand why color is a big issue in the movies. United States is supposed to be a melting pot for everyone. If you think about it, with the exceptions of native American Indians, there are no indigenous cultures here in the U.S. I just find it ironic that non whites are not portrayed as much as whites. Why is that? Aren’t we all foreigners in this land (except for Native American Indians of course)? I am wondering if there are some individuals who have a lot of power are calling all the shots and people who work for them have to follow their boss otherwise they will risk losing their job. Also, I just heard recently at a highschool in Ashbourne Georgia that the organizers decided to integrate black and white proms. I guess they’re moving up in the world, pretty sad isn’t it?
Posted 27 Apr 2007 at 12:23 am ¶