Leaping Into Non-Whites -- Not "PC"?

Liggie

Project QL Intern
Apr 16, 2006
16
0
0
Pacific Northwest USA
Feather-ruffling topic, perhaps. Recently I was perusing reviews of the QL DVDs. One site, "Cinema Blend", had an interesting comment when mentioning "The Color Of Truth". The reviewer wrote, "Today, no doubt there would be a huge outrage at a white man in a black man?s body starting the civil rights movement, ..."

That got me thinking. If QL had just begun in 2006, and this episode where a white actor played a black man aired, would people really get riled up into a huge outrage, calling the episode and show offensive? Would this be a major controversy, which would've had major repercussions for the show's survival?

Personally, I had no problem with it when it aired, and I don't think I would if it were new today, especially if I knew of the show's "leaping" concept. I even think that seeing white characters telling a white actor "We don't want your kind around here" would quite effectively impact the viewing audience, exactly what the writers wanted. And for full disclosure, I am mixed race (Filipino-Ukrainian), so I do have sensitivities and history with racial issues. But what about the rest of the viewing public? Would my no-big-deal stance be outnumbered by those of the "this is offensive and should not be tolerated" viewpoint?

I also wonder, if this writer's suggestion is accurate, how such a view would affect a Sammy Jo series. I've imagined episodes where Sammy Jo leaps into a black police officer in the Rodney King riots, into a Southeast Asian "boat person" refugee, into a Hispanic illegal immigrant. (Imagine how timely that last one would would be, considering recent headlines!) But would those not cut moral muster with people today? And could that doom the series with the viewers, network and (unfortunately, but that's how TV works today) sponsors?

For the record, here's the URL for the review: http://www.cinemablend.com/review.php?id=597

-- Mike
 
Hm...well, in short, the show was still controversial even back in the early nineties. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the epsiode "Running For Honor," which deals with homophobia and gay-bashing, almost never even aired. While the times are most definitely more politically correct nowadays, I still think a show like Quantum Leap would do as well today as it did back then. But if the show premiered in 2006, I can definitely see news article headlines on episodes like "Justice" saying, "Has Quantum Leap Gone Too Far?" But controversy equals ratings, and I believe it would only help the show in the long-run. A lot of why the show still appeals to me is because it fearlessly tackled touchy subjects like race, teen pregnancy, homosexuality, and domestic abuse, among others.

As to the issue of whether an episode like "The Color Of Truth" would be tolerated nowadays, I think even in these politically correct times, it would. And I think the saving grace would be that the show always had a message every time it did epsiodes about important issues like the Civil Rights Movement, for example. But furthermore, what I suspect you may be getting at is if a white man's use of "the N-Word" would be tolerated in television. Well, maybe I'm being na?ve here, but I think even that may just make it. It seems that the only situations where something like that is tolerated is in movies/television. A great movie that tackled the racism issue in modern times, Crash, was successful, so I think it's possible that a television show could be. Again, I think the only saving grace would be that there'd have to be an underlying message.

The fact that more than 80 percent of television nowadays is cheap, uncreative, unscripted reality television, with very few scripted shows still worth watching, would probably help QL stand out more as well. (And to be fair, yes, there are some good Reality TV shows.) But creative shows like QL will always have trouble developing fan bases, because the general public tends to shy away from anything that's different or sci-fi. And I actually think that in and of itself would be a bigger problem for the show than any race-related episodes. That problem, I think, will never go away. And I guess that's why sit-coms, Reality TV, or other bland concepts are always a safe bet for networks.
 
Personally, I think the reviewer is a bit off-base in his assumption that a 2006 audience would find The Color of Truth offensive. Judging from what plays on an average TV night, American sensibilities, at least, are hard and dead. I just think post-Reality TV viewers wouldn't get it nowadays.
Now, I will admit, as a woman of color, I have had a few eye-rolling moments. For example, the Lonnie character in Black and White on Fire irritates the heck out of me with his unrelenting militantism. And when Sam, as Black Magic, lectures the lone black bank officer who won't underwrite a loan for Violet in Pool Hall Blues, I did mutter under my breath, "STFU, Sam." But I repented. Because for every perceived heavy-handed (IMHO) scene, we got many more beautifully scripted, subtle ones, like Sam forcing himself to use the n-word in Justice, or his outrage at the prospect of a 14-year old black servant being raped by her boss and thinking it was love in So Help Me God. And I think the reason it worked then, and would work now, is that it was not done in a condescending way, like, Here's how race relations should work, isn't that simple? Rather, what the reviewer calls SB's "aw-schucks" quality, is much more basic than that, a bewilderment that happens when you put a white man in a black (or Native American, or female) aura, and suddenly everyone is treating you differently from the way you're used to. In Sam's mind, he hasn't changed, yet the people around him are suddenly treating him with different levels of contempt. That's a lot to wrap one's mind around, and the writing and acting conveyed that beautifully. And it was a great visual reminder of how arbitrary those attitudes are.
Would a 2006 audience, introduced to the leaping concept for the first time, get this? Compared to the dreck that's on TV today, it may be too subtle for a generation of people now used to having their ideas and opinions sensationalized, cut up, and fed to them. I don't think The Color of Truth would create offense. I think, at worst, it would go completely over the heads of the average viewer, because "subtle and thought-provoking" are not characteristics of too much of today's programming.
 
bluedana said:
Personally, I think the reviewer is a bit off-base in his assumption that a 2006 audience would find The Color of Truth offensive.
I have to agree totally. Perhaps if the episode was mocking in its tone I could understand him saying that, but the clear intention of the episode was to express a message, which is that everyone should be equal, regardless of skin colour - and I don't think that that message could ever be offensive. If the reviewer's problem is with the treatment Sam receives when in the body of a person of colour, then perhaps he is a bit naive. These things did happen, black people were treated this way, and in some places they continue to be treated this way. If the reviewer's problem is merely the fact that it is a white actor portraying a character who is meant to be, at that time, African-American, well that was the main concept of the show. He also portrayed women, a young man with Down's Syndrome, and a chimpanzee, despite being none of these things, so I don't know why he should specifically single out this example as being possibly offensive.
 
veggie said:
He also portrayed women, a young man with Down's Syndrome, and a chimpanzee, despite being none of these things, so I don't know why he should specifically single out this example as being possibly offensive.

Very good point.
 
Good thoughts all around. I'm inclined to agree with the responders' general sentiments, that a 2006 audience would generally accept this episode. Once they get over the initial shock and accept the leaping convention, they'll relax into the story and appreciate the points being made about racism and the pre-civil rights South of the time. And since Sam leaps into women, children and other people different from a middle-aged white man, leaping into someone of a different race shouldn't be much of a stretch to them.

What I think the reviewer might be getting at is, despite the honest and noble intentions of the show, there will always be some people who will misinterpret the message, or blow up a relatively insignificant facet way out of proportion, and they could end up dictating or manipulating the public discourse that results.

QL Nut's "n-word" example could be one; even though its appearance in the episode is accurate in light of the leap's nature, a percentage of people may object to any use of the word anywhere and therefore will attact the show just for that. (Smoking and violence would be othe rpossible taboos.) The white-actor-in-black-role could be another, particularly with how race is such a sensitive issue today (in America, at least); for instance, I remember a lot of Asian-Americans went ballistic at "Miss Saigon" because a key Asian character was played by non-Asian Jonathan Pryce, a move they considered racist. None of those examples are what the show would want to focus on, but people may be unable or choose not to see the forest for the trees, and there you go.

And any controversy that results could mean bad news just as easily as it could ratings; look at what happened to "The Book of Daniel".

-- Mike
 
The white-actor-in-black-role could be another, particularly with how race is such a sensitive issue today (in America, at least); for instance, I remember a lot of Asian-Americans went ballistic at "Miss Saigon" because a key Asian character was played by non-Asian Jonathan Pryce, a move they considered racist.

True, but in QL, Sam is never anything but a white man; he doesn't "become" black or female or a chimpanzee. QL would only be similar to "Miss Saigon" if SB played in black face, like a minstrel show. That would be offensive to me, and I probably would never watch TV ever again. [Full disclosure: I totally got the outrage over Miss S at the time. It was the old "We couldn't find any qualified minorities" line that pervades both the theatre and corporate worlds.] Even when Sam was crazy, in Shock Theatre, and took on the mannerisms of Jesse Tyler, "a 70-year old black man in the South," it was played with intelligence and a tart sense of humour, rather than as a stereotype.
 
This is a topic where people's views differ greatly between different peer groups. both pro-racist and anti-racist groups.

Many years ago, TV was being dominated by shows with white-only actors, so Anti-racist groups put forward plans that shows should feature black people also, I even believe that some documentation was written up about this. So then Balck people featured along side white people in most TV shows. Then shows were made primarily about black people such as the cosby show, and the same argument was reversed, so white actors were introduced in the same way as before.

The colour of truth was a milestone, as a white person was seeing things as black person would, and therefore showed both communities that it was possible to see the views from the "other side" and everything isn't just "black and white".

I see where the problem would lie from the topic of this discussion though, that the black community who are still racist against whites could take the idea that "white man started the black revolution" as a grievence against the greatest thing they ever achieved by implying that they didn't actually achieve it at all, or couldn't have done it without the help of a white man.

In fact, i had the same reaction when i watched the last samurai for the first time to find out that the last samurai who ever existed was actually an american :wacko (Tom Cruise of all people). For some reason, i found that slightly offensive, even though i'm a white briton, so what must the japanese have made of it.

There will always be racists in the world, who will have their own views on things, and we'll just have to accept it.
Why can't everyone just see "people" instead of "colour".:banghead everyone has something to offer to the world (except criminals and the like).

Peter