Menace II Society (Allen and Albert Hughes, 1993)
by Guest Contributor Geo, originally published at Prometheus Brown
Sixteen years after its release, its easy to look back and pick apart Menace II Society, even easier to accept it nostalgically as the dope film we all thought it was back then. But the feeling of being in your early teens watching this flick, surrounded by folks who bang (pause) or did knucklehead shit remains, and it’ll always be a classic to me. Moreso these days for being a historical document than a dope film. There are plenty of memorable scenes in the film affectionately known as Menace. But today, on the 17th anniversary of the 1992 LA uprsising/Sa-I-Gu, I’ll dwell on one in particular: the opening scene. For those not familiar: two young Black men, Caine and O-Dog, stop for some 40s at the cornerstore run by a Korean couple in South Central L.A. The lady spies em and utters the first of the films countless immortal quotables, “Hurry up and buy.” After a tense exchange at the counter, the Korean dude makes a fatal mistake, uttering the second quotable under his breath, “I feel sorry for your mother.” O-Dog turns around and asks “what you say about my momma?” before murdering them and robbing the joint as Caine watches in exasperation. O-Dog grabs the surveillance tape as a souvenir he’d later show to the homies. A powerful, graphic scene (except for the fact that you can see the filming crew in the mirrors: FAIL). But what did the Hughes brothers intend to say with this? That Koreans are racists who deserve this cinematic execution, perhaps a fantasy retribution for Latasha Harlins? Or to jar and shock the viewer into feeling sympathy for the Korean couple who are merely trying to get by in the same fucked up conditions that the Black community lives in? Does it advocate or justify violence, or does it condemn it? Whatever their intent, this is the effect on others I saw: no sympathy for the Koreans, fanning the flames of Black/Asian tension (to this day: look at the comments on the YouTube clip) and convincing everybody that Larenz Tate is actually a G. This scene reminds speaks volumes about how much those tensions still remained after April 29, 1992. In retrospect, mainstream media did everything to fuel this tension, which was a very real thing. And still is, even though it’s no longer evening news material. Too much of it bought into that myth that Koreans (and all Asians) and Black folk are just natural enemies like that. I refuse to think so, and though I question the Hughes brothers’ intent with this scene, I still find it telling and deserving of revisiting, to ask ourselves: how far have we really come?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
atlasien wrote:
When it comes to the meaning or message of this movie… well, it’s got flaws. I’m not even going to list them because Don’t Be a Menace to South Central while Drinking your Juice in the Hood pretty much covers all of them
I don’t think there was much intent behind that particular scene. It’s very exploitative, stirring up racial issues for the sole purpose of exciting negative emotions and a sense of dread or disgust. It’s like the violence equivalent of pornography.
I remember seeing another violent movie around that time — Killing Zoe — that didn’t involve race, instead it more purely used violence against women to evoke the same kind of feeling.
When it comes to intent, I think the Hughes Brothers wanted to make a movie that was a serious exploration of violence and evil, one that also encompassed a uniquely African-American setting… Menace II Society is really a lot better than the other “hood” movies that came out around the same time, in terms of acting, technique, editing, cinematography.
But to make a movie that was really serious and at the same time drew inspiration from the gangster mystique, they had to uncritically embrace some stereotypes (especially stereotypes of masculinity) that ended up undermining the seriousness.
I think “Dead Presidents” was much more of a success. Other than the ridiculously one-dimension-bitch character of Juanita, it hangs together in message, intent and execution in a way that Menace II Society doesn’t.
Posted 04 May 2009 at 10:41 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
To clarify what I said above, what I really want to say is that the intent behind the scene (or lack of intent) and the general intent of the movie (serious portrayal of evil) don’t really mesh all that well together. It’s like a seesaw that teeters between exploitative and didactic.
Posted 04 May 2009 at 10:46 am ¶
Michelle wrote:
Good points Atlasien. Very good points. I agree that the movie feels like it had certain intentions, but when faced with the difficulty of actually bringing them to life, relied on easier patterns and images. It does have the end result of feeling like a seesaw.
However, since we are still talking about it all these years later, one could argue that the seesaw that we experience as the “watcher” mirrors what life in South Central was/is like for a young Black man (the focus of the film). Maybe they were trying to say that being a Black man in South Central requires one to, as you put it, “uncritically embrace stereotypes”. In fact, Caine was very much the observer, who often was torn between authentic expressions of self and embracing the stereotype.
Posted 04 May 2009 at 3:15 pm ¶
Hibbs4Prez wrote:
I never got the impression the Hughes were trying to glorify O-Dog (who went on by the way to kill other people needlessly too). O-Dog was a sociopath. Period. The look on Caine’s face after the killing of the Korean store owners indicates that the dude went too far. Think of it as when Scorcese has his white characters saying the N word. He isn’t advocating the use. He is simply presenting reality.
Also how can you judge anything by You Tube comments? People are stupid. Now I’m about to get in trouble writing this but as a black man I’m ashamed to admit that no one fails at “getting it” than black folks who strive to be ghetto and gangsta. Those fools applaud near the end of Boyz N the Hood when Cube’s character guns down his brothers’ killers (they must have thought they were watching Die Hard rather than grasping that even sucky John Singleton was trying to say something about the continual cycle of violence). These idiots get on a message board for “The Wire” and show how they are totally incapable of picking up on David Simon’s message (instead they act like a bunch of wannabe gangstas who applaud the murder of characters who snitched or who weren’t hard enough for the game). So why would I expect this type of individual to competently process what the opening violence in Menace was supposed to suggest? Its all a video game to them.
By the way Menace rocks. Its so far superior to Boyz N the Hod it isn’t even funny.
Posted 04 May 2009 at 7:33 pm ¶
inkst wrote:
Interesting post. I haven’t thought about this movie in a long while. It definitely came in a wave of “hood life” themed music and movies. Does anyone remember that short-lived TV series that starred Larenz Tate starred in right after the movie came out? It was called “South Central.” It was a really weird dramedy sort of thing.
Posted 04 May 2009 at 7:38 pm ¶
elle the elephant wrote:
@Hibbs4Prez: What you said about ignorant gangsta wannabes, of any race, missing the point about violence. The same thing doesn’t just happen with hood movies, it also happens with any type of movie that attempts to critic something in a subtle and creative way.
Lets face it, some people are just very stupid, and will never get complex satire or critiques. Take American History X,which is obviously an anti-hate and anti-skinhead movie, yet skinheads actually praise the movie for actually protraying their “life” even though it is obvious that the movie says that “racial extremism is wrong” becaus there small minds can’t comprehend satire. Or take All in the Family, and how many bigots liked Archie Bunker, even though the character was making fun of them. Or A Clockwork Orange, which is pretty anti-government and clearly portrays Alex as evil, yet many people look up to him as “cool” and the “government as right” for what they did to Alex. Or take the Dark Knight, and how many people think the Joker is the “hero” and Batman the “villain” because the joker is “cooler”. I tell ya, this nation is stupid.
Posted 04 May 2009 at 11:13 pm ¶
Arabi wrote:
Well,
I think your all approaching this as if the Hughes brothers were Sociologists or Activists, like they were trying to say something profound about the conditions of the “hood” or send some message about black manhood.
I think they were just trying to tell a story about several young men in a particular context.
That scene actually follows several cinematic narrative conventions. First, the opening scene is a hook, a shocking, and disturbing initial sequence used to keep the audience in their seats.
Secondly, it acts to characterize O-Dog. Here he is framed right away as a “Menace” a killer willing to do away with anyone that displeases him. Yes in a word: a psychopath. He is not necessarily some generalized persona of young black ‘gangstas” (many who would never do what he did)
Third, it foreshadows the coming violence that ends the film, almost in sort of ironic karmic loop since O-Dog is the one who survives the orgiastic bloodbath.
Posted 04 May 2009 at 11:54 pm ¶
Hibbs4Prez wrote:
elle, you’re right. You make some good points. I guess I have just been more frustrated with black folks who claim they are fans of “The Wire” but don’t really get the show. This is shown just by how they don’t care about any characters who are not part of the drug trade business.
By the way I was thinking about “American History X” when I was writing my post but that film is rightfully criticized by some for almost glorifying the main character early on. The dream-like basketball confrontation in the opening in which the athletically superior and dunk monster white guy shows up the bickering and unsportsmanship-like black fools (like the ultimate fantasy for white male bigots). Then those same fools trying to rip off the lead’s home until the lead puts an end to them with the force of his foot. The way the camera shoots the lead, the way it lingers on his warrior like body, the lights of the police vehicles shining on him, the smile on his face. Its pure glorification of the character, almost a god-like presentation of him. This wasn’t to show how charismatic the guy was to his charges. This was a way to make him a cool and charismatic person to the audience.
Its like the people behind the film wanted to have their cake and eat it too. “Yeah, we gotta point out this guy is a bad man but first lets make him the coolest badass in the world as he put those thugs in their place.” That’s how I saw it at least. In the real world of course plenty of black criminals do rob, threaten and even kill white people (and other people of course, mostly blacks themselves). But the vast majority of kids who join those white power organizations never fall victim to black hoods. In fact they rarely have any true contact whatsoever with black folks. When you think about then how the lead’s character had to deal with antagonism from blacks and even how his dad supposedly had lost his job or something to affirmative action, its as if the writers/director are using the old Chris Rock expression to explain the lead character’s motives: “Not saying he should have done that, but I understand.”
Worse of all to me is the lead’s quick turnaround in prison. Basically a black guy tells him some jokes and the dude realizes that being a skinhead is wrong. Come on. Even a beat down and rape by white “peers” in prison would not have led to the guy’s almost overnight acceptance of a black man as his friend. Its a vastly overrated film that is called out by critics but stays high in the fan voting because, IMO, there are a lot of white viewers who used this movie as a means to vent.
Posted 05 May 2009 at 8:59 am ¶
elle the elephant wrote:
What you said about American History X is true. The director seemed to have thrown in his redemption as a afterthought(in fact, a rumor is that the main character actually goes back to being a skinhead after a Black gang member shoots his brother), but the first half of the movie is like “happy-happy fun time” until he curbs stomp that Black car jacker and its then we realize that this guy is a monster. Thats the same thing that happens with A Clockwork Orange, the main character, who is essentially an asshole, is painted as cool and sexy, but its only at the end do we see that he is a monster. I could also say the same about every war movie made, from Full Metal Jacket to Saving Private Ryan, that claims to be anti-war but has incredible battles throughout the whole movie.
Posted 05 May 2009 at 1:47 pm ¶
Titanis walleri wrote:
@elle the elephant: that applies to Rorschach from Watchmen as well (exacerbated by the fact that characters like him have been played straight for ages in comics)…
Posted 05 May 2009 at 2:13 pm ¶
Sean wrote:
The type of cinematic ambiguity that some of you mention actually brought Birth Of A Nation to mind.
Posted 05 May 2009 at 4:38 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
Lol, Sean!
Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:02 pm ¶
fuzzylogic wrote:
I agree with Hibbz4Prez to some degree that the the different characters aren’t necessarily glorified but contextualized in a way to explain the deep contradictions of deindustrial, postWatts riots, crack-LA. In the 80s and 90s, Los Angeles in films comes to represent the apocalyptic world and culture of fast-financial capital and the problematic polyglot “America” that the nation has become because of it. I think of Blade Runner and Terminator II to think about white people and the trauma they experience. But Menace is cool to some degree in how people of color experience it from a different angle.
But this image of Koreans (and Asians) are sorta seen as ‘making it’ cuz of their small entrepreneurship against their black neighbors who represent those that don’t or haven’t. Until we take to task how these neoliberal contradictions of immigrant “success” and African American “failure” come to exist, i think we’ll still get these ideas of asian-black urban warfare.
Posted 09 May 2009 at 3:46 pm ¶
Lisa G wrote:
In regards to the original question of how far have we come…I would like to think positively and say that we’ve come a long way. However, my own reality negates that.
I have to take the question out of its original context and apply it to myself. I had the experience with working with international students at my universities writing center. I was a coach and it was expected of me to work with anyone who needed help; regardless of age, race, gender or subject they were working on.
I encountered a PhD student who was Bengali who didn’t want to work with me. I simply welcomed him to the center and he in turn waited for one of my other coaches to work with him. I didn’t say anything about it, I just let it go. This situation happened other times, but the last straw was when I was the only coach available and he refused to work with me.
I was offended that he had the audacity to critique me based on how I looked, not on the work I’d done in the writing center. He hadn’t even bothered to work with me, he just deferred to wait for another coach, who was white; that was his habit.
It angered me because he assumed that I lacked the qualifications I had to do the job. I was hired, not because of affirmative action, but because I had the skill set to do my job. It’s a new millennium and I felt hurt that an outsider, someone who isn’t born in the United States, could characterize me, based off a series of assumptions that he may of heard else where.
In the realm of academia, where we are supposed to be respectful of intellectual minds I had to deal with that kind of disrespect. It becomes hard to turn the other cheek, especially when people think they know all about who and what you are.
Yes, I believe that there is an underlying current of disrespect and lack of understanding of both ends of the spectrum in regards to Black Americans and Immigrants of any nationality, not just Korean.
Have we progressed…yes. Have we gone far, hell no! But we must learn to walk before we can run… and from where I’m standing, we’re still at the balancing stage, deciding whether or not to walk or run.
Posted 12 May 2009 at 5:13 pm ¶