Film Festival Pick: If I Was Like You

by Latoya Peterson

One of the reasons I enjoy shorts programs is the sheer variety of content that you see.  After eyeing the selections at the DC APA Film Fest this year, I decided to head over to check out the “You Thought You Had It Tough” series.  While I had originally gone for Excuse My Gangsta Ways (which I discussed over at Jezebel), there was another movie that caught my attention from the first frame: Wesley Du’s If I Was Like You.

(Warning: Massive Spoilers Ahead.  Race is woven into the plot, so I can’t easily discuss the film without revealing the major plot points of the movie.  If you have a chance to see it, I highly suggest you do so.  )

The films opens with a sign that will be the focal point of the story.

The full sign reads “If I was a nigger like you, would my son be dead?”

The rest of the story snaps between past events and the situation unfolding in the neighborhood.  Daniel, a single father, lives for his son Billy and has created a quiet life in South Central, Los Angeles.    However, Billy runs afoul of some local thugs over money, and he is found murdered on the sidewalk.

Daniel searches for answers but no one in the neighborhood is willing to speak up, for fear of retribution.  Frustrated and filled with rage, he finally erects the sign and stands on the porch with a bat, using his racist words to provoke the outrage he craved with his son’s death.

What I found most compelling about the film was the attention to detail.  This was not a simple case of racial tensions flaring.  In the beginning of the film, the African-American members of the community debated amongst themselves on how best to proceed.  Two members of the community, obviously friends with Daniel, tried to persuade him to take down the sign before things got violent.  A group of youths showed up and started making threats while Daniel stood waiting for an excuse to start swinging with a bat, and a black woman tries to reason with the crowd, pointing out how there was little to no reaction from the community to his son’s death, even though the murder occurred outside, close to where they were standing.

Eventually, a police officer shows up, the same one who had informed Daniel there wasn’t much that could be done in the case of Billy’s death.  When Daniel refuses to put down his bat, the officer pulls out his pistol.

As the film rockets toward its conclusion, the attention to detail remains strong, even including one of the gathering instigators yelling at the police officer, “Man, if he was black, he would have been shot!”

After the lights went up, the filmmakers filed down to the front of the theater for Q & A.

I was surprised to find that this short was Wesley Du’s first project, as it was skillfully acted and wonderfully concived.  Still, I had a question burning in my mind, so I put my hand up and was awarded the floor.

Addressing Wesley, I asked “Was it intentional to make the officer white? Or was that just a quirk of casting?”

Du informed me that the casting was intentional, and that while his team had gone back and forth about the race of the officer, they ultimately concluded that it would be an interesting reversal to have the white officer protecting the black people in the community.  I read the scene a little differently (more along the lines of state sponsored violence and being treated like a criminal by those supposed to protect you) but obviously, I’ll defer to the filmmaker’s intent.

Ultimately, the film was an interesting exploration of how tensions develop across racial lines.  Turning away from sensationalism, Du’s film shines by humanzing the internal conflicts within various characters, and having the courage to confront a difficult issue head on.


(If I Was Like You, Directed by: Wesley Du. Runtime: 13 min, Year: 2009. Country: USA )

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

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Special Presentation: Wesley Du’s If I Was Like You | Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 03 Nov 2009 at 11:18 am

    [...] Du, creator of the film I wrote about here, has agreed to host to the film on YouTube so that everyone can have a chance to see it. (Thanks [...]

Comments

  1. macon d wrote:

    Thank you for this review, hope this intriguing film gets distributed somehow.

    I have a slight demurral. You wrote that you’ve decided to “defer to the filmmaker’s intent,” rather than insist on your own interpretation of that scene. I think your interpretation is more interesting and useful, and I don’t think that when we interpret a film (or book, or artwork, etc.), we need to limit ourselves to what the maker apparently intended. After all, what’s there is there, and anyway, who knows what the maker really intended? Sometimes the makers themselves don’t even know that, and/or remember it.

  2. Ay-leen wrote:

    Immediately, the premise of this movie reminds me of Charles Fuller’s Zooman and the Sign, which I saw a few months back. Except while this film explores racial tensions, Fuller’s play addresses class tensions and the issue of gang violence within the black community over a similar situation.

    But I’m still interested in checking this film out if it comes to my area.

  3. Jess wrote:

    Interesting– how would you stack this up against Do The Right Thing?

    (I realize the Lee’s film is a full-length feature. But what I always liked about it was that it didn’t take routes that were too obvious, most famously when Mookie throws the can through Sal’s window — people still go back and forth on that).

    Also I was mightily surprised to hear you defer to the intent of the director in this case, given how often you and many of the other regulars here have said it doesn’t matter (especially when discussing problematic images). Was there a reason you saw it differently in this case?

  4. Jess wrote:

    Sorry, should be, “What was the reason… “

  5. regina wrote:

    Where can I watch this?

  6. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Regina -

    I just asked Wesley, and he said the film has been rejected from all the other film festivals he applied to (probably due to the inflammatory content).

    I’m not sure what is next for the film – I am going to suggest he make it available online.

    (And if there are any filmmakers in the house with the tips, let me know!)

    @Macon & Jess -

    I deferred for this reason: Because Wes’s marks were more inclusive of a full community than my reading. As the viewer, the highly charged scenario sent sympathy toward the character of Daniel, making the police scene feel like yet another betrayal. However, when Du explained his reasoning, I liked that it was a deliberately more positive rationale for the officers actions to protect a normally persecuted group. As such, I’m happy to defer.

  7. Cindy wrote:

    Please keep us posted on the possible release or online viewing of the film. How great that there was a discussion following the viewing.

    Good explanation on the deferral to the filmmakers’ perspective. I would not, however, want to discount your own view either. I think it is equally as relevant.

  8. Jess wrote:

    Still not sure I understand the reasoning — I get that you listened to Du’s explanation and seem to have gone with it — but I haven’t seen you give a pass before whatever explanation anyone gave, so I am still a bit confused.

    You said you felt sympathy for Daniel, so that felt like a betrayal — (and I want to see this, and haven’t, and I am not you, seeing this so forgive me if I sound obtuse) — a betrayal of…???? the local black community? Daniel?

    As I understood it you originally saw the scene as the officers attacking someone who they are supposed to protect, and that’s Daniel, right? Or did I miss something here?

    I got Du’s explanation, by the way. That at least I could figure out. :-)

    (Maybe I am overthinking this?)

  9. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Jess –

    My take makes more sense if you watch the film. While I had to spoil quite a bit I did want to reserve a few things. And yes, I mean when the gun was turned on Daniel by the police man, it felt like you were watching a betrayal. (Or at least, I felt that way).

    And my deferral in this case isn’t a pass – I deferred to the filmmakers view because I liked his construction better. I still believe my own view is valid, but I liked the different, more positive spin Wesley provided.

  10. Ron wrote:

    I just cannot buy the premise of the film. Black on Black violence is what is prevalent not Black on White violence.

    In South Los Angeles Black men from the ages 0f 14 to 35 are like 20 times more likely to die of a violent death. This is twice the rate for hispanics and and 20 times the rate for whites.

    Although I have not seen this film, it seems a bit intellectually dishonest. What is the point? Fantasy?

    Mod Note – Ron, are you serious? Your first assumption is wrong – the character is Asian American. Secondly, how are you going to go off on a film you haven’t seen? – LDP

  11. Phuong V wrote:

    Yes! Interracial relations– I love it. I wonder why Latoya, you chose not to explicitly state Daniel and Billy’s race. Should we assume from the pictures and/or the director’s name that Daniel is Asian American? If he’s Asian American, it further encourages me to question your choice not to name his race. I’m wondering if that is silencing to the Asian American community or if you are allowing space for the characters to identify as otherwise. However, in this movie the racial identity of the main characters DO matter. And Asian-Black relations? Shooooot, it REALLY matters.

  12. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Phuong V –

    Wow. What part of “I went to the APA Film Festival” did you miss? Between your comment and Ron’s comment above, I find it amazing that even here, the default racial assumption falls to whiteness if a race is not clearly stated.

    @All -

    For clarity, if you neglected to click the link, or do not understand what APA means (Asian Pacific American), here are the identifications.

    *Daniel and Billy are Asian American. The filmmaker, Du, does not specify nationality/ethnicity.

    *They live in a predominantly black neighborhood, in South Central, LA. The film was shot on location there.

    *The thugs who killed Billy were African-American.

    *The people in the neighborhood were generally black, but not all were African American. There is another shop owner who is Asian American, but his nationality/ethnicity is not identified.

    *The only white person in the film is the police officer.

  13. Cindy wrote:

    Does the actual/perceived race of the characters matter? I think probably yes because we may have different reactions depending of which race is involved and depending on the location of the incident. An interesting perspective could be how the story/reactions might change if the mix of the races were shuffled? Would we react differently if for instance this situation occurred in a neighborhood in central Illinois?

  14. Jess wrote:

    Ah, now I get it!

    Thanks Latoya. Sorry if you feel that “spoilers” are so problematic — I am one of those who doesn’t care if I know how a movie ends (especially with stuff I haven’t seen but that every sentient being can tell you the plot of — I mean, I didn’t see the sequels to The Phantom Menace until sometime after their release, but if you can’t figure out that Anikin becomes Darth Vader, you know?) Anyway, I realize that other people like the surprise better.

  15. africameleon wrote:

    “if i were a nigger like you, would my son still be dead?”….YES!

    Maybe I should watch the film; but ppl don’t care when black boys die. So it’s sad, but the father should not have been surprised.

    And like my dad always said “black = not white and that means we are all N*ggers to the white man even though we don’t think so. “

  16. africameleon wrote:

    furthermore….this may be a play on the “model minority” myth. b/c the faterh calls them “n*ggers”. so is he saying if i was ignorant like you….i.e. not the silent model minority….then would anyone care about my son. idk, maybe it’s a stretch but i think that statement is pretty powerful.

  17. Phuong V wrote:

    @ Latoya

    ack, definitely my fault for skimming over the abbreviation. Shame on me! I apologize. But now I am confused about why you say my comment was assuming whiteness. I was writing from the perspective that the Daniel and Billy were Asian American, which I mention a few times. I had mistakenly thought you did not imply their race (through the film festival title). I guess it all resulted from my error. Anyways, thanks for sharing about the film.

  18. Jason wrote:

    I’m personally curious as to why the cop shoots the man in the end, since he’s standing in his own driveway with the bat, and not out on the street.

    I’m also a little confused by the father’s sign. I could understand him putting up a racist sign in an emotional reaction to his son’s murder by black men, but the question “if I was a nigger, would my son be dead”, seems a little strange, because it seems to indicate that black men in South Central don’t shoot each other. Did something happen at the beginning of the film which indicated that the son was targeted BECAUSE he was Asian?

    “And like my dad always said “black = not white and that means we are all N*ggers to the white man even though we don’t think so. “

    I hope you don’t actually believe that nonsense.

  19. Cathy Bao wrote:

    First off, I wanna say actors David Huynh who played the son Billy and Keo Woolford who played Daniel the Dad were magnificent.

    I watched this short at the DC APA film fest, and after viewing it, I must say I feel that perhaps the racial conflict was used as a tool to emote hate among the characters, in order for the main character to loose faith in God. And to me, that was the real question Du may have intended to raise. Racism was the catalyst for the question of religion and finding God again.

  20. Liz wrote:

    Cool Ryan, subject very interesting would like to see the film.

  21. Jolie wrote:

    I don’t understand.

    So he is an asian man who lost his son , he lives in a black neighborhood.
    And he is calling the blacks there racial slurs because no one would say who killed his son?
    Well of course no one is going to say anyting, it happens to poor blacks all the time.

    Does he live in thier neighborehood and think he is above it?

  22. Phil Deeze wrote:

    @ Jolie,
    That was my feeling on the banner’s statement i.e. “If I was a ni%%er…..”
    South Central LA is a tough place to live. But for an Asian-American man to act as if Black men aren’t MUCH more statistically likely to die from gun violence than Asian-American men or White men? It’s intellectually dishonest.
    Everyone in urban communities knows how difficult it can be sometimes to get good people to step forward and bear witness against the gangs or the local street tough. Race has very little to do with it. The same phenomenon was prevalent in the 1920’s through the 1940’s in New York and Chicago during the Gangland days—a period, mind you, was nostalgically cast in more than a dozen classic films.

  23. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Jolie/Phil Deeze/Jason –

    My interpretation was that the sign was intended to spark a confrontation, to provoke a reaction from a neighborhood that had been largely indifferent to his son’s death. During the opening scene, the sign is up, and Daniel is waiting outside with a baseball bat.

    He knows a fight is coming – that’s what he wants.

    In a way, I thought it kind of parallels the idea of suicide by cop.

  24. Phil Deeze wrote:

    @ Latoya,
    I feel you. And suicide-by-cop makes perfect sense based upon the anguish a father that’s lost a son and has, essentially, given up on society. I dig that.
    Part of the dichotomy though is the general idea that majority-black communities have become “de-sensitized” to black-on-black crime, murder in particular, YET we see the same church service for the funeral, tear-stained faces of yet another mother that’s lost a son, etc. I don’t think there’s a feeling of being disconnected from what has happened or a callous reaction, I do think, however, there’s a helpless feeling to all of the despair in affected communities. And, sadly, buffer minorities are caught in the crossfire of this dynamic.

  25. Marquis McKinley wrote:

    “Man, if he was black, he would have been shot!”

    Ms. Peterson,
    Thanks for the shoutout of my line. Your review of the film was exceptional and his film definitely has sparked some interesting takes on racism and life in urban black communities. I hope you all enjoyed the film and if you haven’t seen it, I do hope Wes puts it online so you can enjoy a great film by a first time filmmaker.

    Marquis

  26. Barry wrote:

    I think one of the smartest choices in the film is the interaction between Billy and the “thugs” at the opening. At the very least I hope it’s smart: the thugs ask Billy, “I can’t have you lie to me Billy, where’s the rest of the money.” Billy says, “I gave it to you.” And thus a relationship is implied, though Du does not fill in the gaps, leaving the audience to imply under what circumstances Billy owed these cats money. He could have been running a tab with one of the dope doys, he could have simply borrowed some cash, hell, he could’ve been serving himself under the guise of the model minority at his local high school, whatever, and come up short on his stack. Either way, Du does not state explicitly what the nature of the money owed is but what does arise from this is that in some way this is NOT a random act of violence.

    Now, this being a first film, this could simply be a mistake; the thugs are simply picking on Billy because “one of these things is not like the other” and playing to the model minority stereotype Billy is ripe for the picking. And the dialogue Du uses here has not been thoroughly examined for the narrative it implies prior to the events of the film and what we’re left with is an interesting narrative thread unintentionally addressing the main narrative.

    However…if the former argument is the read we take, it then makes the father’s sign even more provocative. To me, the father clearly posts the sign because he believes his son’s death was a hate crime, an act of racism. It’s tragic (if you take the read that Billy’s hands may not have been so clean in all this) that the father simply equates the events to the most base motivator.

    I personally do not believe Du’s intent was to imply that Billy’s friction with the neighborhood was brought on by his own possibly criminal activity. I think that would add some interesting subtext to the film but I don’t think that was Du’s intent, and I say this because I kept expecting someone in the crowd to mention this very thing, that Billy the person was more involved in the neighborhood than the father thought. Instead, everyone’s reactions (at least all the young black males’ reactions) is outrage at the sign without any empathy at its motivations. The intimidation in the corner store scene actually bothered me somewhat because again, it brought the young black male characters into the film down to the basest motivator (race based hate).

    I keep going back to that exchange at the opening of the film and Du’s intent. Is he slipping us something there that really digs into all the characters here, especially the father, or is just a line with accidental thematic weight (or, and this could be it just as well, I’m reading way too much into it).

    The film is on youtube by the way. This is how I saw it.

  27. Barry wrote:

    And I should mention the performances WERE very truthful across the board. Impressed.

  28. mlm wrote:

    barry i want to say you are overthinking it but i watched that one part like 3 more times. i can see how you could think that. perhaps, he is trying to say that and that a father wouldn’t know if their son was wrong or right or even care. this racism and hatred that was given to us comes out of us when we feel our back is against the wall.

  29. mlm wrote:

    @ latoya it did cross my mind that it was a role reversal white cop protecting the black people and also your thought came to mind. didn’t think about it too long though. i really want to know if they were trying to address racism or express their own feelings.

  30. Eurasian Sensation wrote:

    Interesting the different assumptions being made on this thread about Daniel’s motivations for putting up the sign.

    I read it as simple rage. Feeling as if the black community around him was uncaring, he made the sign. I doubt he would have been thinking about the statistics of who suffers the most from gun violence in South Central, or the subtleties of Asian/black relations. In moments of rage and despair, all kind of wild emotions are revealed from the gut.

    I like the nuances in the film, which allows events to be read in different ways. And it seems to be critical of how both Daniel and his black neighbours see the issue of race. It is not clear whether or not race had anything to do with the son’s death, but Daniel feels like it is. The line “Man, if he was black, he would have been shot!” is a brilliant touch – implying that while Asianness may have made his son a victim, it may also have prevented Daniel from being shot.
    The reaction to the sign shows the contrast of the young black men being stirred to violent passion over the word “nigger”, yet seemingly ambivalent about the murder of Daniel’s son.

    Great short film that made me think a lot.