Not Another Dance Movie!
by guest contributor Robb Garvey Thompson, originally published on Blackline
Black people love to dance, and everyone knows it. Don’t believe me? Watch any black awards show. You can have the most elite black people in the country, wearing the finest designers, sitting dignified, but once you add a Kanye West performance to the mix, you’ll find them grinding and dancing away on the floor. It’s almost as if we can’t help it.
You can also take a look at black films across the board. Almost every “black movie” features a scene where the actors “shuck and jive” to some dance-worthy tune, proving the stereotype true to all other races: that black people cannot resist a good beat.
Now I’m not saying that dancing is a bad stereotype. I mean we have worse (i.e: fried chicken, watermelon, hook-ups, rims, gold teeth, etc.), but I hate that it’s just expected that we just have to move to a good 808.
Black people attribute this “booty shaking gift” to when “we were in Africa,” and we danced around the fires naked and uncontrollably. Somehow, after being in the States for more that two centuries, we never lost site of our roots. Experts say that even after Kunta lost his foot, he still hopped on beat.
But I believe there is more to us as a people than “getting down.” So when I found out Offsping Entertainment was releasing the sequel to “Step Up,” a dance movie entitled “Step Up 2: The Streets,” I was instantly annoyed.
I mean how many black movies about dancing can I take? We have “Drumline,” “You Got Served,” “Stomp The Yard,” “Save the Last Dance” (1 and 2), “Honey,” the first “Step Up,” and now this.
I was in for a rude awakening.
I saw the trailer, but could not find one black person in it. The movie was whiter that my orientation at Columbia. I had thought just by the title alone, “Step Up 2: The Streets,” that they would have some “street people” in it. To my own surprise, I was appalled.
I instantly started questioning myself…These white people dance better than me…Who am I? Am I Black enough? Who will the world look to for the latest dance move?
I was suddenly calmed when I saw the list of black choreographers from the movie. I realized that the dancing stereotype isn’t so bad after all. Sure, nobody likes to be stereotyped…but what if the dancing thing is true? I mean, seriously, have you seen a black person not dance to “Thriller?”
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
LeAnne wrote:
It is not the worse stereotype out there… although it’s most commonly used and accepted. Like a, “weeeeelllll it is true.” Mmmkay.
hairsmystory.com
Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 10:09 am ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
note: singer cassie, playing sophie in the film, identifies as multiracial (she is of mexican, filipino, and (afro-) west indian descent.
Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 10:12 am ¶
Wayne wrote:
There’s also a Canadian produced movie, which has acquired US distribution. Friends south of the border…stay tuned for “How She Move”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF1TOLUsgCE
Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 10:56 am ¶
Lizzie(greeneyedfem) wrote:
“I saw the trailer, but could not find one black person in it. The movie was whiter that my orientation at Columbia.”
I’m sure all the brown folks show up at the competition, to get beaten by this crew.
I’m a sucker for movies with amazing dancing — I suffer through the plots to see the moves — but this looks like its takes a page out of ‘The Last of the Mohicans’ or ‘The Last Samurai’ — movies about white people doing Native or Japanese culture better than the Native Americans or Japanese.
Which is not to say that hip hop and breaking is not an “authentic” cultural experience for some white folks — but it does raise interesting questions about authenticity and subcultures, and who gets to participate and who “owns” certain cultural artifacts.
Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 12:12 pm ¶
Katxyz wrote:
The entire synopsis on IMDB reads
“Romantic sparks occur between two dance students from different backgrounds at the Maryland School of the Arts.”
I thought the main characters comment in the trailer that the school was like “an episode of the Hills” was supposed to indicate she was from “the streets” or the “wrong side of the tracks” or whatever. It’s the inverse of the white (or just middle class minority) ballerina going to the inner city and learning to dance hip hop, like in Save the Last Dance or that other movie about to come out.
Maybe she’s supposed to have an interest in hip hop dancing as a result of being raised in a predominately non white community?
Maybe the character was supposed to be black but having a black female lead and two white male love interests was too touchy/taboo for the film makers?
The dancing, especially the lead, does look awesome but I can’t make myself sit through these movies. I’d rather just go to a good club in DC and see actual dancing without the horrible plots. The dialogue is usually just as bad though.
Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 1:14 pm ¶
ColbyCheese wrote:
I’m kinda confused. Here’s how I interpret this article. Paragraph by paragraph:
P1: The stereotype of black people as a “dancing people” is portrayed often on television.
P2: The stereotype of black people as a “dancing people” is portrayed often in movies. The “shuck and jive” comment lets me know that this is a “bad thing”.
P3: Dancing isn’t the worst stereotype, but it’s still bad.
P4: Many supposedly “smart” black people help perpetuate this stereotype.
P5: The author heard about this movie and just knew it played into the stereotype.
P6: Rant about exploitative movies like this one, and then list a few similar examples.
P7: Author was surprised that the movie didn’t have any black characters in it.
Now here’s one of the confusing things right here. He then goes on to comment “The movie was whiter that my orientation at Columbia.”
The confusing part for me is that, if we parse that sentence and reverse it into something that a white person might say, wouldn’t that be the exact sort of thing that this site is supposed to be criticizing?
The movie was blacker than my orientation at Hillman.
The movie was more Jewish than my orientation at Columbia.
The movie has more Puerto Ricans than my orientation at Columbia.
Then he says: “I had thought just by the title alone, “Step Up 2: The Streets,” that they would have some “street people” in it.”
So that’s a stereotype, that white people can’t be “street”, right? Inversely, if NO white people are street, then wouldn’t that imply that ALL black people are street? And all black people aren’t street, so that’s a stereotype. Right?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m genuinely confused. PLEASE help me out here. I am intrigued by what’s going on here (the website), but I am not fully aware of the social dynamic here. There seems to be alot of valuable, intelligent discussion going on here, but I just can’t seem to place it in a meaningful social context.
As for my context, I’d be considered “black” in most situations (as long as there are no Puerto Ricans or Dominicans around), but I’m not so sure I really “fit in” with the black…well any of the demographic here:
-I grew up in Chicago (West Side)
-Live in the Midwest
-Neither of my parents went to college
-Only a handful of people on either side of my family tree have gone to college
-I don’t know ANYONE personally who went to Columbia, or Stanford, Duke, Berkley, or any other nationally prominent university.
-I don’t personally know anyone who makes over $100K a year
A large percentage of the black and latino people that I grew up around actually ARE ignorant. They haven’t traveled much, if at all. Usually they have finished high school, but not college. They’ve never even heard of Gore Vidal, or Ann Coulter. Never read “The Miseducation of the Negro”, or the Malcom X bio. They have tacky MySpace websites. They sold/sell dope. They did/do participate in street gang activity. Buy stolen property off of the street from “hypes”. But despite all their failings, I love them all (mostly) because they really are good, compassionate people at heart with the best of intentions.
So from a social standpoint, I really can’t tell where some of these articles and editorials are coming from. I’m seeing what I perceive as the same type of discriminatory thought patterns (that the “villians” in these pieces are being damned for) coming directly from some of the commentors here. And they aren’t being challenged, so that implies to me that what they say is considered “true” by the group at large.
Was this piece supposed to be ironic? Isn’t “pretending” to be a racist or pretending to buy into these stereotypes, not quite, but almost as bad as actually believing in them?
In a post from a few weeks or so ago, I saw that someone expressed the desire to attract new people, with different ideas and to teach/learn. I don’t know about teaching, but I’m certainly new, interested in learning, and I’ve gotten the impression that my ideas are different. Can someone help me out?
If not, that’s fine too. I’ll go poke my nose through someone else’s door. Just please don’t misinterpret my curiosity for being a troll. I don’t want to cause trouble, I’m just curious.
Thanks,
-ColbyCheese
Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 2:58 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
colbycheese-
the article is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, satire, a joke, as most of the blackline pieces are, if you visit the site.
Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 3:39 pm ¶
G.D. wrote:
Colby Cheese:
*whoosh* much?
Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 5:08 pm ¶
Dan wrote:
Why the hell does a love of fried chicken have to be a negative stereotype? That shit is delicious. It’s not fair.
Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 6:04 pm ¶
Dan wrote:
“Isn’t “pretending” to be a racist or pretending to buy into these stereotypes, not quite, but almost as bad as actually believing in them?”
I really don’t think so. At least not in the context of comedy. Look at Sarah Silverman. She does exactly that in order to expose and ridicule the thought process of the ignorant and bigoted among us, and because of that the joke is entirely on her.
Nothing should be out of bounds when it comes to comedy. It’s one of the most effective ways we have of shedding light on and understanding the most awful things in the world. And when you can laugh at something awful for it’s pure fucked-upedness (sic), it becomes a lot easier to discuss it in other contexts.
Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 6:16 pm ¶
ColbyCheese wrote:
G.D. - Actually, I don’t “whoosh” much. I’ve really never played basketball at all to be honest. I never wanted to perpetuate the stereotype, but thanks for asking
I just wanted to try to clarify some things because I’ve gotten the impression that quite a few of the posters on this site are…well…let’s just say that your response wasn’t surprising, I actually expected something along those lines. Like a dear friend from the ” old neighborhood”. Thanks for the warm, familiar welcome. Hopefully I can prove myself “post-bourgie” enough to warm myself in the warm glow of your good graces
Dan - I can see where you’re coming from, and I guess it’s just a matter of taste then. For example, I’m really not a fan of Ms. Silverman’s work. I used to be a fan of dealing with racism through comedy until the “Dave Chapelle” phenomenon hit us. Now, I’m not so sure. That was a pretty strong indicator to me that at least 50% of the time, they really ARE laughing AT you, not WITH you.
As far as my wall of text above, my biggest observation is that alot of the people here seem (in my estimation) to be pretty vicious when talking about “the opposition”. Considering how balanced and metered most of the essays, etc seem, it seems that there’s a disproportionate amount of venom being thrown back over the wall on occasion.
Basically, I guess I wasn’t expecting some of the exchanges here to be so intense. Hood-ilicious even. Perhaps I have some stereotypes to work through.
Wendi Muse: - Yeah, I figured as much. Thanks for the response. I really appreciate it. I might check out that site another time. As you might have seen above, I’ve gotten enough warm welcomes for today
*thanks* much
-ColbyCheese
Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 8:01 pm ¶
merq wrote:
ColbyCheese,
Sadly, your last comment helped prove G.D.’s “whoosh” point even more. Unless I misread the meaning, that was meant to signify that the post’s true meaning went over your head.
Having said that, I have to say I wasn’t impressed with it at all. By the time I was done reading the post, I had to ask precisely what the point of it was.
We all have moments where we realize we’re not really going where we’d hoped with a certain piece we’re working on. The difference is, we often either come back to it with a fresh pair of eyes or scrap it altogether to save others from having to waste their time reading it.
This piece really didn’t go anywhere.
Posted 31 Jan 2008 at 1:48 am ¶
seoulflower wrote:
ColbyCheese
your not alone…
sounds like your calling out the progressive BS for what it is…
peace & blessings,
seoulflower
Posted 31 Jan 2008 at 2:19 am ¶
Dan wrote:
Colby-
I hear what you’re saying, Colby. Personally, I think Dave Chappelle had every right to feel the way he did and stop doing the show. But I don’t believe that the show lost any merit because of it.
Just because some people aren’t going to be smart enough to understand where an artist is coming doesn’t mean that his work itself is any less brilliant or relevant. I think that’s a dangerous road to go down.
Comedy is an art, after all. Comedians just don’t seem to get the same kind of respect that other performers do.
Posted 31 Jan 2008 at 6:31 am ¶
Dan wrote:
I meant to say “Just because some people aren’t going to be smart enough to understand where an artist is coming from”. Oops.
Posted 31 Jan 2008 at 6:34 am ¶
bdsista wrote:
I have a list of stereotypes that are true. Stereotypes often come from a place of truth, particularly when it is cultural/behavioral. The damaging part of stereotypes is when distinctions cannot be made and the broad brush is wiped across the entire group. So yeah the fried chicken, watermelon, always late (lots of groups have that one!) like to dance, etc. stereotypes have a place in reality. But other people like chicken, watermelon and dancing too! But I will state having been to white and black colleges, that being able to dance is a MAJOR social skill that affects your ability to engage in the mating rituals and other social events that exist amongst Black folks. My mother discovering I had no rhythm at 7, promptly set my Auntie Babsy to teaching me to dance that weekend. After an entire day of James Brown, Aretha, Gladys, Marvin, the twist, the jerk, the four corners and learning to snap my fingers. I gained rhythm (oops did I let it out the bag that its NOT genetic?)
Having mastered that skill, it has served me in good stead from middle school to the present.
I too would be mad about the movie if it co-opted the whole urban thing. It’s like Vanilla Ice and Eminem mixed up together!
Yo Colby, ease up! All are welcome here! I got your points, but I also appreciated the measure of self reflection in the piece. Race is so paradoxical at times.
Posted 31 Jan 2008 at 10:21 am ¶
cat wrote:
is it just me, or does the ‘ethic’ character sophie, seem to play the villain?
from the stare down in the hallway, to the condescending ‘you just spat on me’ to the tuba player, to ’shes got more conviction than anyone i know’…
hrrrmmm… a movie ‘full’ of white main characters, and an ethnic minority as the villain. yes, an inverse of the ‘white girl’s going to the bad part of town’, but interesting when laid out.
Posted 31 Jan 2008 at 1:49 pm ¶
G.D. wrote:
bdsista:
stereotypes have a place in truth?
It seems like stereotypes are often broad enough — as you noted in your ‘other people like watermelon, too!’ — to make the racial connection. If other people like watermelon/chicken, why bother specifying?
If you buy that there’s something inherently true about a stereotype, aren’t you *necessarily* riding for discrimination? What would be the purpose in believing that Asians are smarter and blacks are criminal if that *wasn’t* going to affect the way you’d treat members of those groups?
It just doesn’t follow.
Posted 31 Jan 2008 at 11:58 pm ¶
G.D. wrote:
whoops.
that should read ‘…’to *not*’ make the racial connection.’
Posted 31 Jan 2008 at 11:59 pm ¶
bdsista wrote:
I didn’t say all stereotypes are true, but some are culturally based coming from an ‘intra-community” perspective. i.e. CP time, which has its variations. It comes from a survival technique created during slavery, however, it has evolved into a stereotype that is a truism. There are foods that certain groups eat more than others. Those choices are from cultural history and familial patterns. Negative stereotypes are used to perpetuate racism. I am not *riding for discrimination* or making excuses for those who chose to believe those things that perpetuate white supremacy, and will act accordingly, I’m just saying that not all stereotypes are negative. I am not the one who brings stereotypes up, but if you think they are not a part of fabric of familial/community social interactions, then I don’t know where you live. Oh and it one of the few things that transcend class lines.
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 2:37 pm ¶
blackskeptic wrote:
well, i agree with pretty everything that colby cheese said. i didn’t realize that this post was meant to be satirical b/c it was subtle satirical (yes, i do read this site - but not every entry). i honestly thought that the article was about someone that realizes that there could be worse stereotypes and that they don’t mind the “black people have more rhythm better than everyone else” stereotype.
in short, i thought it was both humor/sarcasm + honesty. not just satire.
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 6:15 pm ¶
deb wrote:
Wasn’t Obama gettin’ down on the Ellen show? I think on the Tyra Banks show too.
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 5:30 pm ¶
Cara wrote:
I don’t think people should be chastised for stating the obvious! If a movie is plays on racialized roles then we should say so!
I don’t understand why people are upset about this post…..It’s like Pat Boone for the 21st century folks; except it is manifested through Hollywood “urban market” films. Why is this issue being trivialized here?
These “urban” films and the “urban market” are just a way for Viacom and the other major companies and studios to appeal to the white majority youth by telling their stories within a black and/or p.o.c. aesthetic….HELLO?! Have we been paying attention for the last ….huuummm…. 100 yrs or so? With the onset of radio, tv, and film, original cultural forms of expression within communities of color are slowly but surely ‘whitened’ for majority consumption. The Hip Hip / “urban” market is the top market right now, and the studios just want to make money.
[n.b. During the “latin explosion” lots of people started to over-tan :o)…. remember the asian tattoo fad a while ago? With the exception of the big 3 (Lee, Chan, and Li); why have all of the big martial arts hero’s been white males?….etc.]
I strongly dislike these films because the people who should get exposure are erased from the main plot of the film and become only apart of the setting and/or scenery – giving it that all needed street credibility (whether we like it or not). If you really want to make an “URBAN” film why not put a different spin on it…….Hip Hop culture has definitely expanded into several ‘urban’ communities, so why do the leads have to be white? Why not a Pilipino male lead and an Native American female lead – for example….why in the hell do ‘whites’ have the capability of exposing this aspect of Hip Hop culture? Of course whites are also ‘urban’….many have lived among p.o.c. in “the urban hood/ghetto/streets” (if you will…), but why are they the one’s telling the story? It is because they want to tell the story to a white audience; therefore they don’t necessarily have to appeal to an actual “urban” audience. If the leads where p.o.c….i.e. Pilipino, Native American, etc…..then they would have to address the “racial” plot within the storyline…..therefore, breaking the 4th wall and letting the audience know that, “we are peeping in on their lives”… it usually always happens. Thus further eroticizing and ‘othering’ ethnic people.
I am very troubled by the ease at which some people used a “reverse racism” argument while criticizing the post. It’s not that simple people! I thought, for the purpose of this site, we were to look at issues of pop culture and explore the racialization of images, etc…..I believe that is what the author attempted to do.
Posted 05 Feb 2008 at 4:42 pm ¶
Cara wrote:
*Thus further EXOTICIZING and ‘othering’ ethnic people.*
*why have all of the big martial arts hero’s been white males?….* - well there is Westley Snipes, but you see what I mean.
Posted 05 Feb 2008 at 6:32 pm ¶
pophop wrote:
I must send my gratitude for many of your depthly responses but i am still a little hard of understanding this racial ownership over dance. Various dancers despite their coloring are exceptional dancers in a various number of arenas. For the majority of recent dance movies they are filled with talented and amazing dancers, yes mostly ‘black’ you will find…… however when the time arises to share our talents you feel it is in some way that this type of arena is not suitable for ‘white people?’ You imply you felt relief when you saw the list of black choreographers, like ‘oh well thats why the dancing is so good’ as natuarally you assume your skills are more refined as leaders of this industry, BUT you don’t want the stereotype attached????? Did it not occure to any one of you that the assimilation of black and white dancers in order to produce the film may be a lesson of great proportions - that this is an emotional and kinasthetic experience/journey we share together despite the negative force of racism! I am aspiring to teach my year 11 Arts students (multiculural backgrounds aplenty) about race through dance and was stifled by the response the artical has generated - did it not occur that taking it to the streets means, taking it to the world, to show others the goodwill, ambition and determination one has to succeed in life through expression of movement, not whether black people are more street than white people. I think a greater appreciation for other cutural feats should be recognised with a more defined sense of creativity than that of our individual color.
Posted 09 Apr 2008 at 1:05 am ¶