“Drawing
a Goofy Mustache on an MLK Mural” or If You Can’t Talk Free in a
Barbershop, Where Can You Talk Free
A Review/Ponderance of Barbershop by Mike Meyer
I won’t mince words. Barbershop is great. It surprised the
hell out of me too. I honestly wasn’t planning on seeing this film
either. From the trailers and other promotions, it looked like another
lamentable black comedy with insane caricatures of black people, enforcing a
smoldering, but not quite extinguished sense of suburban “safe”
racism. But low and behold…..a comic gem emerged. Not only
was it funny, but the whole package just warmed you up, revving up a love of
people and humanity that often isn’t explored or worse, sugared up and
dumbed down.
Before I get to the characters, I want to say something about the design of
this film. First off, this was a Chicago film. Not that it was made
in Chicago by Chicago-native filmmakers. This film looked, sounded, and
felt like Chicago. The barbershop itself optimized the classic, earthy
barbershops of the Chicago area and the cinematography was top notch in capturing
that dingy but colorful, rough but full of heart vibe that can only exist in
Chicago. Oh yeah, and any of you who’ve endured a Chicago winter,
bundle up before you see this movie. It will take you back and make you
shiver. The scene where JD (Anthony Anderson) gets doused in water from
the gutter just may incite convulsions.
Okay, the characters. This was the film’s greatest achievement as
the main plot of Calvin (Ice Cube) trying to get his dad’s barbershop
back from a loan shark (Keith David) is only really there to hold this shaggy
dog of a story together. You end up loving each barber and patron in that
shop. You can’t help it. They are three-dimensional flesh
and blood humans. Even though Eddie’s (Cedric The Entertainer) makeup
was second rate, it doesn’t prevent a real person from breaking through
and making you forget that he looks like an Al Sharpton costume with splotches
of spilled white-out in his hair. The interactions between these characters
make you feel like you’ve known these people all your life and dig their
company, despite how they may piss you off sometimes with their radical beliefs.
(I know this segues great into the Al Sharpton issue, but hold on, there’s
still a bit more review left.)
The only thing I can say I had any problem with at all was the subplot of the
two guys trying to break open the ATM. It really served no purpose other
than to get the story out of the barbershop for a while so the audience wouldn’t
feel like the walls were closing in on them. This subplot fell into that aforementioned
category of black comedy and really cheapened the film, fortunately not enough
to ruin it. And speaking of unnecessary, (here it is, folks) some people
have seen fit to challenge Barbershop on the political front, threatening boycott
and hoping to hurt this film financially, a strategy which…surprise surprise…netted
the movie even MORE money and public interest.
Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and several other civil rights leaders around the
country have sought to possibly boycott Barbershop because of a certain scene
where Eddie, the cantankerous elder barber, pokes unflattering fun at civil
rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr.(citing his infidelity), Rosa Parks
(citing that she wasn’t the only one to sit on the bus), and even Jesse
Jackson (citing….Fuck Jesse Jackon. I think that was all) himself.
There is the faction who says these people can’t take a joke. There
are others who say that people who died for civil rights don’t deserve
public mockery. Wherever you stand, the issue’s a huge Catch-22
on that good old First Amendment.
My stance, no surprise, is with the filmmakers. It’s not the most
socially safe opinion for me to have being a suburban white kid, but I’d
think that any thinking person who would set out to hinder one person’s
First Amendment rights to preserve the name of someone who fought for First
Amendment rights would either realize the semantic quagmire they’re in,
have a good laugh, and drop it. Or else, they aren’t thinking.
To me it boils down to this….there’s a huge gap between making fun
of people and making fun of what they represent. In the film, no one said
ANYTHING to the effect of “I think Martin Luther King’s protests/marches/etc.
were wrong and unnecessary.” Not at all. He was giving the
MAN HIMSELF a little ribbing because he was promiscuous. And really it’s
not that bad. A lot of people were promiscuous and still made an impeccable
stamp on history, even dying for their causes. What about Bob Marley?
What about JFK? JFK did quite a lot for the nation, was killed for his
beliefs, and we still rib him about his promiscuity. Why should MLK be
any different because of his cause or his race? And Rosa Parks DID what
a lot of people were doing, but she got all the press. This isn’t
aberration for humor’s sake. It’s the truth. However,
it doesn’t take away from the effect it had on American history and culture.
As for other comments made, it’s still the same thing. If you take
away the impact the Rodney King trial had on America, yes, Rodney King was an
unruly drunk driver. O.J. may or may not have done it…although making
that trial a racial proving ground should go on record as one of the collectively
moronic things we’ve done as a nation. These people are still people.
You have to separate the man from the mission. A man is open to scrutiny
because he is a human being. So is a mission, but rarely do they get more
pure and right as the civil rights movement. Even Sharpton said on CNN’s
Crossfire that he didn’t mind sending up these people, but in a positive
light. I say it’s all or nothing. If you want real freedom
of speech, you’ll take good with the bad. Good-natured ribbing with
mean pseudo-debasement. Not to mention that for hoards of people including
yours truly, the true test of reverence and camaraderie with someone is the
ability to give them hell. But whatever I or you or Al Sharpton or MGM
thinks, after all is said and done semantically…. it’s still a movie
we’re talking about, right?
This is a film. And we’re not talking about Triumph of the Will.
It’s a small, Hollywood movie in which a possibly senile character says
a few choice phrases among friends in a Barbershop. According to our government,
that may be means for public debasement if he was Middle Eastern and in a Shoney’s,
but this is still a small instance in a fictional setting. This
guy is a CHARACTER. What he says may or may not be anyone’s real
opinion. And either way, who cares? I only care enough that they
shouldn’t take it out of the film. Because of the First Amendment?
Sure. But more importantly, it enhances the character and moreover enhances
one of the film’s central themes: If you can’t talk free in
a Barbershop, where can you talk free?
respond to mike@filmbrats.com