Race, Class and One-Night Stands

by Guest Contributor G.D., originally published at PostBourgie

For all its considerable charm and sharpness, there’s a patina of sadness that hangs over Medicine for Melancholy, a new film written and directed by Barry Jenkins that just entered limited theatrical release. The story focuses tightly on a man and a woman (Wyatt Cenac and Tracey Heggins) in the wake of their one-night stand at a party. The initial awkwardness gives way to a tenuous connection, as the two quasi-bohos realize that they share many of the same cultural affinities (which Cenac’s character, Micah, refers to by the shorthand, “indie”). The stuff they like, Micah notes at one point, is decidedly about not being black.

This could all be cute and earnest in the way a lot of mumblecore is — quirky boy meets quirky girl in hip, scenester-ish town — but Melancholy has much bigger questions to ask.

Micah is a preternaturally chill native San Franciscan who feels increasingly alienated as the city rapidly gentrifies. “Imagine the Lower Haight filled with nothing but black folk and white artists,” he tells Jo, his would-be lover, about his long-gone San Fran. (It’s become the least black of America’s major cities.) Jo, wary at first but charming over time, is a transplant who doesn’t see the world in Micah’s specifically racialized terms, and it’s implied by the relative sizes of their living spaces that she occupies a higher position in the economic food chain. Both though, are black people partaking in a social milieu where Negroes are rarities. None of this tension is anywhere near as didactic as it may sound; these issues come up intermittently in the course of the pair walking and biking around, making each other laugh and generally feeling each other out.

The film is almost relentlessly plausible, and there are plenty of long silences between the two; they’ve had sex, but they don’t know each other. As well as they begin to connect, there’s enough difference in their respective outlooks for those things to become real fissures in the future — a future, which given the circumstances under which they’ve met, is far from assured. There are as many reasons for their dyad to work as there are for it not to. And so they (mostly) avoid discussing it.

The two leads are in just about every shot in the movie, and Cenac, best known for his work on The Daily Show, is a particular surprise. Tracey Heggins is the right mix of opaque and warm as Jo, and it’s obvious why Micah is so taken with her. Jenkins imbues Melancholy (which is shot almost completely in sepia tones) with an excellent sense of pace and place; San Francisco is as much a character as Jo or Micah. It’s Jenkins’s first film, and it’s an assured debut. Even the scene in which Micah and Jo listen in on a community meeting on the city’s rent control laws doesn’t seem forced, though by all rights it should have.

I saw Melancholy two days ago, and I’ve been trying to get it out of my head since then. No dice. It’s the rare film that gets everything right about city life: random connection, anonymity, loneliness, class tensions, and most importantly — possibility.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Everything about being indie is tied to not being black. « AKACOCOLOPEZ on 16 Feb 2009 at 11:22 pm

    [...] Click here for some more info on the movie. [...]

Comments

  1. Jamerican Muslimah wrote:

    I can’t really say I’m feeling the sepia tones but I’m very interested in seeing the film. Is it on DVD?

  2. Chris Chambers wrote:

    My wife and I went to screening compliments of my aunt and we loved this movie. The trouble was, when we spoke to other black folks about it earlier this week, many felt it was a rehash of the old “Love Jones,” or even the comedy “Hav Plenty” or early Spike Lee; our neighbors, who are a so-called “mixed” couple (boyfriend white, girlfriend Japanese-American) asked after seeing stuff online: “Is this a black film?” I said no, it’s a love story, a city story. Most of the people I now know who have seen it or want to see are “white,” and I hope to change that. I don’t know why this is?

  3. jen* wrote:

    From the piece here – I want to see this! Is it in theaters?

  4. Monie wrote:

    The thing I hate is that this film is in limited release. Why? If it were some freakin’ thug movie or TP film it would be everywhere, but a smart film that treats Black people as the individuals we are, nope. That sucks.

  5. Shawn wrote:

    Is there a website with more info on screening locations? Hopefully Atlanta will be one of them so I can take my lady to see it. Sounds like a good movie, and the kind I’ve been wanting to see: smart, subtle, and not making our skin color the story.

  6. Jaya wrote:

    Monie — or its just an indie film that needs time to get bigger. Wyatt Cenac is pretty popular, don’t be surprised if this gets wider release.

  7. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ Monie
    Yeah – how about that? Looks like the movie is about two singers and one white central character short of the kind of backing that would easily earn wider release. Which is a shame. So . . . long live the cinematic invisibility of black lives that look like this.

    I’m rolling down to the IFC Center to see this as early as possible on Saturday.

  8. gatamala wrote:

    I am going to beg the local indie theater to show this. Beg…literally.

  9. G.D. wrote:

    Monie: I think that comparison is completely unfair. This is movie is super-duper-low budget, and whether you like Perry or not, he was a well-known and much-loved commodity among his audience before he’d ever jumped into movies.

    Another thing that grates me about this is the *need* to compare this with those films. Why do people do that? They’re two totally different animals, even if all the principals are black. It seems so reductive.

  10. aimerrouge wrote:

    @ G,D. I think you comment about comparing a Tyler Perry movie to this movie is right on. It is reductive. As time progesses, I think reductive nature to group all things Black, as though they are monolithic, together will need to be addressed and explored.

  11. ceecee wrote:

    I hope it comes out on DVD sooner or gets a wider theatrical release.
    We need another Love Jones!
    PS for those who want to know http://www.strikeanywherefilms.com/
    limited release in NY, SF, LA, Detroit and Seattle.

  12. Rachel_in_WY wrote:

    @ Chris Chambers
    I can’t answer for all white people, but I’m interested in the film because many of my black friends are more like the pair featured in this film than the stereotypes and caricatures of black people that are so prevalent in most movies. I grew up in Seattle and went to school in SoCal (so maybe it’s a west coast thing) and there’s a lot of variation among the black people I know, just like among my white friends. The fact that white people can have all different kinds of styles, interests, tastes, hobbies, etc in movies, but black people are presented as this monolithic group doesn’t mesh with my experience of the real world, and it does a great disservice to everyone.

  13. Danielle wrote:

    When will this come to DC already? I’ve been wanting to see it after I missed the Md. Film Fest, when it played last spring.

  14. Fiqah wrote:

    Finally.

  15. cocolamala wrote:

    i am so interested in seeing this movie, i saw trailers for this a while back, but despaired of it ever getting screened near me. i am happy to see it pop up again. I’m going gatamala’s route and begging the local indy theaters in Cleveland to show this.

  16. [dave] wrote:

    ooh i’m prepared to like this a lot if they put it “in theaters near [me].”

  17. Monie wrote:

    G.D.

    Reductive you say? I say what is really reductive is that Black people are reduced to being BFF’s , mammies, thugs and all sorts of other stereotypes in film year after year.

    If there where dozens of films released each year in which Black people were portrayed as full human beings with full emotions and living full lives, then the comparison with TP films might be considered reductive. Since this is not the case and since it seems that at least 2 TP films are released each year and films like the one outlined in this post are rare then I believe it’s a fair comparison.

    @Jaya

    I’ve got my fingers crossed.

    @A.D.

    So true.

  18. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ G.D and Aimerrouge
    While it is comparing apples and oranges to a certain extent, I don’t think it’s anymore reductive than talking about black subjects in cinema period. Or is that not to be done either?

    If anything, it’s an appeal to challenge the appearance of black monolith and a yearning for diversity in representation – in films large and small. And maybe a quiet wish that independent films, where a wider range of voices have a shot at being heard, could have reach beyond NY/LA/SF and Those Two Independent Theaters in your town (if you have them at all).

  19. Kaonashi wrote:

    O wow, this sounds like a movie I actually want to pay 10.50 to see!

    Too bad it’s not playing near me. >.>
    Hopefully that will change?

  20. Mammith wrote:

    I want mumblecore to die an agonizingly painful death, but this looks less annoying than the stuff I’ve been subjected to.

  21. MultiracialComment. wrote:

    The description of the movie sounds intriguing. Much media has sought to dispel the stereotype of African Americans as being of low socioeconomic status (e.g. the Cosby Show). But it seems like mass media has at the same time attempted to perpetuate the idea that essentially all young black people are beholden to an urban subculture centered on hip-hop. The review appears to indicate that this movie is engaging in stereotype-busting in this respect, which would be a good thing.

  22. Kelvin wrote:

    I mentioned this movie in on some posts a couple of weeks ago. I would like to see it but I don’t think it’s being released in the DC Metro area.

    @Latoya – Please forgive my tardiness…my life is going through a lot of change..changing jobs, working on popping the question to my GF…please forgive me.

  23. SepiaScreen wrote:

    If you have Comcast digital cable you can see it On Demand under “IFC in Theaters” which is how I saw it because as far as I know it’s not being screened in my city (Atlanta).

  24. Trey wrote:

    i just saw this film, and I love it. The film hits all the right notes, especially when it comes to portraying what it’s like being black and navigating the indie world.

    For those looking to see it, I ordered through my on-demand digital video service. IFC releases it through a lot of cable providers.

  25. aimerrouge wrote:

    @ A.D. Nix – “While it is comparing apples and oranges to a certain extent, I don’t think it’s anymore reductive than talking about black subjects in cinema period. Or is that not to be done either?”

    Nothing in my comment spoke not discussing anything. Maybe I was unclear so I’ll try again. There is a tendency to group Black people together no matter what the context. While neither right or wrong to do, I think discussion needs to be had on what is the appropriate context of doing so.

  26. Lola wrote:

    NETFLIX subscribers can add it to their que

  27. Shermy wrote:

    I saw this film at IFC last night, and I almost didn’t make it through the whole thing. Honestly, I found it psuedo-intellectual, forced, juvenile and at times just boring. The few times these characters actually speak is some of the worst dialogue I’ve ever seen. You only really get to know the characters on a surface level, and then to make up for that, the dialogue tries to get deep, and we only hear from Micah. When Jo speaks, we hear words, and she says nothing! It seems as though there could have been tons of opportunity, given the relative silence of the characters, where really important and thoughful observations about being an outsider in and “outsider” scene could have been voiced, instead we get a one liner. Boring!

  28. Me wrote:

    @ Rachel_in_WY: I hope this doesn’t sound patronizing but its so nice when I read comments like yours I just want to give you a hug! I have lots of white friends who feel the same way but I meet many more that dont. It takes some of the edge of the burden of feeling like I constantly have to explain everything and justify myself to everyone when I see that mainstream white society is increasingly understanding our diversity.

    Thank you.

  29. JLC wrote:

    I really want to see this movie because I think I’ll be able to identify closely with the characters. As an Asian guy in NYC who’s pretty “indie” even though that culture is decidely about not being an Asian guy, I can really relate to what the characters are dealing with. Plus, for some reason the description of the movie reminds me of “Once,” which is awesome.

  30. Zahra wrote:

    @Rachel_in_WY:

    I agree with everything you’ve said! But I have to say it’s not a West Coast thing, as the black people I know on the East Coast are similarly diverse in their tastes. (I’d be hard-pressed to find a concert they’d all agree on, for one.) And it is depressing to see the how far from reality pop culture is on this.

    Looks like a great film.

  31. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ aimerrouge
    I think what you could be clear about is how comparing representations in a film with black subjects in America to representations in another film with black subjects in America – and their respective reach – is necessarily “reductive.”

    The crux of my point was this (in case I was unclear): if you can’t compare these films without accusations of some kind of monolithophilia (which is exactly what I believe Monie’s comparison challenges), how do you talk about group representations at all?

    How do bust up the appearance of a monolith if you can’t put diverse, but currently “grouped,” texts side by side and say “These are not the same?”

  32. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ Shermy
    I heard the female character was flat. Th rest of your comment gives me pause. I have little tolerance for mumblecore and even less for things that take a good premise and muck it up . . . I’ll bring a flask in case I get bored/agitated.

  33. jen* wrote:

    *goes to add this to her Netflix queue*

  34. G.D. wrote:

    A.D. Nix/Monie: I have two big problems with lumping these films together.

    First, it posits that one of the merits of this films should be that it’s *not* a Tyler Perry film. I don’t think this film is a counterpoint to those films, nor do I think it should be. (This ‘negative/positive’ thing is a black hole; peep how it completely derailed the conversation in the thread on ‘Push.’) Also, the logic doesn’t follow: if we’re arguing against black representation in film as a monolith, we can’t compare every ‘black’ film to every other black film like that’s the most appropriate rubric for critical evaluation. It pretends that those films have more in common other than the race of the cast/creators. They don’t.

    Secondly, it completely disregards the logistics in how films get made. Tyler Perry was a very, very well-known playwright before he made his first film. He had a huge, built-in fanbase that made his films and subsequent ventures hugely profitable. His films are populated and plugged for by reasonably well-known actors, distributed by a sizeable-enough studio, and big-upped by Oprah Winfrey. Melancholy, on the other hand, was made by a first-time director with no Hollywood clout and was made for probably a tenth of what Diary of a Mad Black Woman was made for. Mentioning T.P. assumes that ‘good’ black films don’t get made/make money because Hollywood has a vested interest in perpetuating stereotypes, and nothing to do with the fact that this is film may just have a smaller audience for reasons other to do with ill intent/neglect on the part of studios.

  35. Jess wrote:

    This is on my list too. It’s funny the difference between San Fran and say, Oakland.

    With any luck, this movie will get a following going. Lord knows, we need more films like this. I mean, I have friends of many backgrounds as well, and none of them has ever been that well-represented in the movies either.

    (Has anyone else ever noticed that whenever a character speaks a foreign language, s/he will mysteriously forget how to say “yes” in English even after speaking it fluently for the whole movie? It drives me batty).

  36. Fiqah wrote:

    BTW, if you have Time Warner you can get it from the “IFC in Theaters” section of Movies on Demand (channel 1000 in Manhattan). I’m about to watch it right now. It’s either that or start that pathetic, defeatist, self-flagellating internal dialogue thing I do when this wretched holiday finds me between boyfriends. :::sigh:::

    I gotta go make damned popcorn now.

  37. blip wrote:

    I have no interest in seeing yet another “rom-com” that suspiciously leaves out the romance and blatantly knocks off the Before Sunrise/Sunset films.

    I hate when my fellow black filmmakers believe “original”, “fresh” and “indie” means recycling stale ideas from white filmmakers. Mumblecore is vapid regardless of race.

  38. Baiskeli wrote:

    O.K Thats it, I have to watch this movie!!

    There doesn’t seem to be a theater anywhere in MA showing it and I don’t have cable so I have to either figure out what to do or wait until it hits Netflix.

    On a related note, my wife was watching TV and they were showing ‘Missisippi Marsala’.
    It’s one of my favorite movies in how it deals with issues of race and class from an American and non-American perspective. It’s up there on my list of best movies ever.

  39. G.K. wrote:

    @Monie

    That’s the truth, for real—if MFM was some stupid comedy or the one-thousandth & one gangsta flick starring the latest hot rapper, you’re damn right it would have gotten a much more wider release, especially if it had a banging soundtrack. I saw a trailer for this on YouTube a month ago and was curious because it reminded me of a John Cassavetes flick. I’m just so glad it got a release, for the simple fact that most black indie films, it seems, get virtually little or no distribution and wind up languishing on the shelf at Hollywood Videos or Blockbusters.
    I hope to see it this weekend, since it’s playing at the Detroit Film Theatre. Here’s the schedule for any Detroit posters looking for it:

    http://www.dia.org/dft/item.asp?webitemid=1725

  40. ahimsa wrote:

    Just a quick correction for #38 (hope you don’t mind, Baiskeli) but the movie name is actually Mississippi Masala (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102456/). It’s one of my favorite movies, too!

  41. Phrone wrote:

    It looks cool, but I doubt it will come near me. I live near Detroit, so the fact that one of the few films to portray complex black characters will not come to a predominantly black city is pretty sad. Although, I suppose, on another level, a lot of the issues the film seems to deal with, particularly gentrification, is not as big of a reality in Detroit as it is in, say, San Francisco. Is Detroit gentrifying? Probably. Does it have many other problems facing it? Yes.

    :| At least it’s on Comcast and Netflix.

  42. G.D. wrote:

    blip: whoa, whoa. it’s certainly not a “rom-com,” and it’s not even really mumblecore, as Barry Jenkins has said in a bunch of interviews.

  43. cocolamala wrote:

    just saw “a good day to be black and sexy,” it was an interesting film

  44. Ayo wrote:

    yeah i saw “a good day to be black and sexy” as well
    I was very much entertained and really did like the dialogue

    My only problem is with the scope of these movies and how many people are seeing them. With the mumblecore movement and white representation whites dont really have to worry much as you have far more mainstream “querky” and or “deep” and “intellectual” movies like Juno, Little miss sunshine, Wes anderson flicks which reach a lot more people.

    POC need a figure who lures audiences in the same way Woody Allen and Wes anderson do. We can’t keep showing our movies in rented warehouses and really small festivals.
    I heard of Melancholy years ago and I don’t know how on earth i’ll be able to even see it.

    Just to add I dont think mumblecore as a concept is wholly bad, its just the execution with some of their movies have been really bad.
    mcore movies i liked: Quiet City, Mutual Appreciation and most of The Puffy Chair

    LOL is godawful and doesnt deserve its name
    Hanna takes the stairs is cringeworthy and aimless (not intentionally ambigious just aimless)
    Dance party usa i couldnt get through and showed bits to my friend for giggles.

  45. rob wrote:

    @phrone 41. and others

    I am puzzled as to why it seems that this film will be difficult to see in your areas, especially if as you say about detroit, there are large black populations. Are there no small independent cinemas? No art-house theatres? Maybe if there is such a demand an enterprising individual could start something good by organinising a showing in such places.

    I dont think i will bother to see the film as its a love story (groan) and im not that much into movies anyway buts its nice to think that a film has managed to make so many racialicious readers look forward to seeing it without having to get tied up in ideas of stereotypes and race.

  46. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @G.D.
    I think “lumping” is to general a term to use for this. I compared He’s Just Not That Into You to Your Friends and Neighbors in a piece yesterday; they’re very different films. Talking about what each says about women and how each was distributed doesn’t mean one thinks they should be “lumped” together.

    Discussing the difference in messaging and dissemination of two different films that do share some feature (be it black main characters or sad white women) doesn’t mean one is making that feature the sole rubric for critical evaluation. And it definitely doesn’t require pretending they have more in common than that feature.

    As for the criticism – I said absolutely nothing about the positive/negative binary and would say nothing about the positive/negative binary because I don’t buy it. My only concern is diversity in portrayals. I would no more want every film with female protagonists to make them super women than I would to make them . . . whatever you call what’s happening in HJNTIY.

    Yes, MFM is small. But I don’t think it’s limiting to discuss why it’s so small and the consequences of its size. I mean, in my city, it’s playing at the theater in which I saw both Dreamgirls and Alien vs. Predator which makes it pretty easy for a lot of people to see. I doubt that’s going to be common coast to coast. Why not ask ‘why’ (however far down the rabbit hole goes)?

    I don’t think Monie’s comment disregards the logistics of how a film gets made, rather engages the entire machine.

  47. jdlady wrote:

    must see this film asap! totally ready for a cenac attack.
    as a black, female SF native this really strikes a chord with me. i love my hometown and think it was a wonderful place to grow up, but left as a young adult because i felt that there was not a place for me (or anyone without huge amounts of disposable income, really) there anymore.
    it is really interesting that a lot of us are retracing the steps our grandparents and great-grandparents in the early part of the 20th c. to get to California by heading back to the south and mid-atlantic.

  48. TMA wrote:

    *Spoiler alert!*

    I saw MFM last night with two of my girlfriends. We differed in our feelings about the movie. It’s definitely not an updated Love Jones or Hav Plenty. Both of those movies featured extended casts that were primarily (completely?) Black. MFM is about these characters and San Fran. Only one of the scenes in which other characters were featured had Black people in it. The others featured characters/extras that were mainly White.

    I thought Cenac’s character made several good points: asking why Blacks/PoC in the ‘indie’ scene date White people, not other PoC when dating interracially; how gentrification has completely changed the social landscape of the city in which he grew up, and asking how Joanne’s character was able to live where she did (mortgage paid by White BF).

    While Joanne was physically beautiful, her reluctance to engage with Micah regarding the points he brought up really irritated me. Well, I suppose she did when she exploded and asked if she and Micah should just date each other simply because they’re both Black. I wonder if the writer/director intentionally made her seem more avoidant/enigmatic(?) intentionally, but for me it made her character seem less sympathetic. I would have liked her to utter a line or two linking/interrogating/hell, at least acknowledging the privilege her IR relationship afforded her in terms of lifestyle (neighborhood, the space to ‘figure out’ what she was doing without having to worry about paying the mortgage) and how that may have affected her view of Micah as ‘one of those’ Black people that sees everything as Black/White and/or a conspiracy theory. Which I didn’t see him as.

    However, this wasn’t my film so this isn’t what happened. I think MFM was a little disappointing to me for that reason, as well as that I had such high expectations for a current, indie (and not straight to DVD indie) movie with two Black as the leads. Perhaps the real disappointment is that I had such high expectations because movies like MFM are a rarity.

    Despite my issues that I mentioned, I think MFM was a well made film that does reflect Black folks who are living their lives/trying to love outside the mainstream. It was refreshing. Please support it if you get the opportunity.

  49. G.K. wrote:

    @Phrone 41 & Rob:

    If you scroll upwards , I just posted that MFM opened yesterday here in Detroit at the Detroit Film Theatre (which is, sadly,the only thriving arthouse theatre within the city) and I provided a link to the schedule also. The only other arthouse theatres I know of are the Main Theatre in Royal Oak (where I went for some years) and the Maple in Bloomfield Hills.

  50. Stella wrote:

    @ TMA:

    I’ve yet to see the movie as I live in Toronto, but I was watching an interview with Barry Jenkins and he said something about how originally, when he first wrote the script, it was about an interracial couple: black guy, white girl. He then scrapped that idea because he wanted to show two opposing viewpoints from people of the same background… but I guess all he did was change her ethnicity and nothing else. I’ve now heard from many people that Jo’s character just doesn’t seem to have much to say on anything race-related, and I find that rather frustrating since I’ve never met a woman of colour like that before in my life. I suppose they do exist, though.

  51. embarcadero13 wrote:

    Sorry, I’m not reading the comments because I am so excited to see this movie and I don’t want any spoilers.

    I live in SF. This is my story, I’m hoping… But ironically, it doesn’t open here for another 2 weeks.

  52. timarasa wrote:

    @ stella: interesting it was initially written as an interracial couple, but haven’t seen the movie myself yet. here is a youtube link of an interview with the lead actress (tracey heggins) and how she identified with the character:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2QRwnlCItU

  53. Stella wrote:

    Thanks, timarasa! Pretty interesting interview… I just need this movie to come out in Toronto already! I don’t want to have to wait for the DVD release.

  54. Kaonashi wrote:

    I’m in Chicago and no movie for me. Guess I have to wait in line for the DVD release.

  55. Josh wrote:

    This is a quibble, but I was surprised by the assertion that San Francisco is the least Black major city in America. While the Black population has fallen a lot, I didn’t think that was true. I took a quick glance at Census data, and Portland, Salt Lake City, Anchorage, Boise, and Albuquerque all have smaller Black populations. Of course, those are all much smaller than San Francisco, so maybe they aren’t major cities, depending on your definition. But at least two cities larger than San Francisco have proportionally smaller Black populations than San Francisco – San Jose (3.8% vs. San Francisco’s 7.3%) and Phoenix (6.0%).

  56. Monie wrote:

    @Josh,

    I think the point is that in the past San Francisco had a fairly large African American population that has dwindled down for various reasons. The other cities that you mention never had a large population of African Americans. Check out the history of San Francisco and in particular the history of the Fillmore district.

  57. TMA wrote:

    @Stella

    Thanks for that tidbit. Now Jo’s behavior makes more sense, but is no less irritating. Like you, I’ve never met a woman of color quite like that. Interesting.

  58. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ TMA
    You summed up a lot of what I found frustrating about this movie (although I liked it). Jo was completely inert and in a lot of ways, kind of wasted. Her situation was interesting but she was just . . . absent in so many ways. She had so little to say in response to Micah (and I think there was a lot of room to take issue with what he said) and it bothered me.

    I started thinking about the Manic Pixie Dream Girl archetype (see: Garden State, silly Sweet November etc.). It’s something I complain about a lot so I wondered, if roles had been reversed, would I complain about Jo just being another MPDG? The thing is, if roles had been reversed and Jo was the one asking questions and crafting the journey, it’s unlikely that they would have let the male character read as so passive.

    Here, Micah got to kind of functioned as both the Manic Pixie Dream Girl and the charming protagonist. There was little left for Jo.

    Nice ending though. And amazing tone.

  59. Nelly wrote:

    Stella, thanks for the information about Jo initially being White. I also thought it was weird how she seemed to have no opinions on race at all.

    A.D. Nix, what in particular did Micah say to Jo that you took issue with? I’m not being antagonistic. It’s just that I saw the movie recently, and I’m interested in hearing other people’s opinions on it. I refuse to go to IMDB!

    TMA, you made some great points. I agree with your entire post.

    ***SPOILER ALERT***

    If I’m not mistaken, the address on Jo’s license was an Oakland address. How can someone who moves from Oakland to a large apartment in San Francisco be so blasé about how race shapes the Bay Area? I know there are areas of Oakland populated by White hipsters/scenesters, but it is still decidedly less White than San Francisco. That seemed like a blind spot to me.

    I know the housing meeting touched on issues of displacement (be it by race or class or both), but I don’t remember them coming up between Jo and Micah (except when she told him that paper on his wall about housing in S.F. was “morbid” or something).

    I didn’t miss a moment, did I? I know Cenac mentioned the East Bay in an interview (”It’ll be interesting to see what San Francisco will be like in five or ten years. Will everybody be living in Oakland? And San Francisco will just be where they come to work?” ) But, I don’t remember the East Bay coming up on screen. Maybe, it’s just the Berkeley-residing narcissist in me, but I think it would have been an interesting conversation. I realize that it also could have come across as too “teachy” and expository. I’m sure people who know the Bay Area could fill in those blanks, but I’m not sure if others could.

  60. Robyn wrote:

    I love this movie. I live in Maryland and caught it at home on IFC on Demand.

  61. A.D. Nix wrote:

    ****SPOILER ALERTZ****

    @ Nelly:
    Thinking back (aaaall the way back to long ago Sunday) what comes to mind first is his assertion that the only interracial pairings you see in “the scene” are black men and women “hanging on” white people – never South or South East Asians, never Latin@s, just The Blacks. In reality, that’s the scenario you are probably least likely to see.

    It was actually one of the few in which she even got close to confronting his ideas (rather than deflecting or answering with blinks) but all of that got kind of pushed aside to deal with the matter of her relationship status.

    Also: I so, so agree about Jo and Oakland. Even the kids I know from Oakland Hills aren’t as seemingly naive as Jo was made out to be. My Berkeley-born-and-raised BF isn’t as naive and blasé as Jo is made out to be. That’s not to say that Jo’s don’t exist. But . . . it made her harder to believe in this situation.

  62. Nelly wrote:

    ***SPOILER ALERT***

    A.D. Nix, thanks for your response.

    Thinking back (aaaall the way back to long ago Sunday) what comes to mind first is his assertion that the only interracial pairings you see in “the scene” are black men and women “hanging on” white people – never South or South East Asians, never Latin@s, just The Blacks. In reality, that’s the scenario you are probably least likely to see.

    I think I remember exactly the scene you’re talking about. Micah says, “It’s always one of us hanging on to one of them.” I initially thought he meant just Black people, because the initial conversation was about Black people and the indie scene (Wasn’t it right around his remarks about TV On the Radio and how “indie” = “not Black” ?) But didn’t he preface (or follow up) that statement by saying People of Color and emphasizing how you never see “for example, Black chicks and Asian dudes.” I thought he was emphasizing how a vast majority of those relationships are POC/White, not that it’s something specific to Black people.

    I’m not trying to deny your interpretation or anything. It’s just that I was expecting this conversation in this particular movie, so I had my ears perked up (I think)! Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. Either way, Micah’s dialogue was a little clumsy there. I certainly found myself wondering which antecedents he was referring to (I know I sound like such a grammar geek).

  63. Sera wrote:

    I live in Seattle and saw this film the other day. It felt more like reality than a movie. As a woman of color who loves hip hop but also loves hipster dance party music and biking, I tend to always feel as if I’m the token brown girl in the bar, or in the neighborhood in general. Seattle is another example of how white culture dominates the central city life in many ways, and our black communities have been pushed south. It is hard to meet other people of color who have similar interests. I kept thinking “this is my life! minus the hot black man…but I guess that’s the point.”