Quentin Tarantino Presents For Colored Girls: Or the Myths Behind the Box Office Defense of Tyler Perry’s Adaptation
by Guest Contributor Sofía Quintero
Lately I find myself wondering what might have been Quentin Tarantino’s approach to cinematizing Ntozake Shange’s seminal choreopoem For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf.
Once he had gotten over the initial shock of being offered the job, I can imagine Tarantino signing up for the challenge. Known for penning screenplays driven by crisp dialogue and characters with quirky names (Reservoir Dogs, anyone?), he could have found an immediate albeit superficial connection with the source material. Since Tarantino is also an aficionado of Black cinema circa the time of the play’s original production, I’d bet he would have pursued a gritty 70s aesthetic and forgone imposing contemporary settings and storylines. And let’s face it – since the race and gender politics of his films are usually a muddle of contradictions, he might not have done any worse than Tyler Perry with regard to Black representation.
I mean, if the job of adapting For Colored Girls was not going to an African American woman, might as well as given Quentin Tarantino a shot at it.
Or Martin Scorcese. Or Steven Spielberg. Or Christopher Nolan.
You’re kidding, right?
Yes and no. Almost one month after its release, the blogosphere remains abuzz with equally strident critiques and defenses of Perry’s treatment of the Black feminist literary classic. One particular defense of Perry has inspired my absurdist train of thought: had not Perry been attached to write and direct For Colored Girls, a major studio would not have financed the film. The argument further implies that he guaranteed box office success that would otherwise evade the project if it were even made, stunting future writing and directing opportunities for other African American filmmakers.
This argument rests on several assumptions that keep Black cinematic representation so stagnant. To compel the film industry to take both the business and politics of our representation seriously enough to increase and diversify the stories it produces, we must reconsider them. Perry’s adaptation of For Colored Girls should urge us to question three assumptions in particular.
#1: The community needed For Colored Girls to be a major studio picture.
Anyone remotely familiar with my work knows I am a major proponent of infusing progressive sociopolitical ideas into unapologetically commercial entertainment. My overall disappointment in For Colored Girls (some of which can be heard in my interview with Joan Morgan by Dr. Mark Anthony Neal) and this specific defense of Perry’s involvement reminded me of another vision I have: a day when there’s an Angelika in every ‘hood. Or do not urban, working-class people of color deserve to have art house theaters in their communities? The idea that such folks can’t appreciate never mind support films independently produced and distributed outside the studio system is elitist given that they have yet to be given the opportunity to prove otherwise. Especially when you consider that some of the more interesting (even if not progressive) depictions of Black life have not been financed by major studios nor screened at multiplexes.
And for those who champion having representations of Black life that crosses over to White audiences, such moviegoers are far more likely to support a critically-acclaimed, low-budget, character-driven independent feature. They rarely pack the stadium seats at the nearest AMC theater for a “Black” drama. Rather the liberal White folks who are willing to spend time and money on our cinematic representation are usually frequenting small theaters with names like the Rialto to see joints that screened at Sundance or Cannes. Regardless of who wrote and directed it, this is the approach that I believe would have done Shange’s play the most justice, both artistically and financially.
Page 1 of 4 | Next page