Addressing "Messianic Visiblity"

As described by Phruksachart, "Messianic Visibility" is "an overinvestment in the idea that insistently normative cinematic identification possesses transformative, even curative, political and personal potential". In other words, simply achieving representation is not a complete political solution by any means. I am sure that there are many Asian Americans that saw Crazy Rich Asians at a multiplex (or just saw its level of success at the box office) and felt some degree of acceptance in American culture. It could be argued whether this is a good thing or not. Phruksachart posits that this representation is used to keep minority groups complacent and therefore prevent actual political change, because media representation gives oppressed group the feeling of being accepted without any government policy behind it.

Phrukaschart raises the question of what correlation media representation has with legitimate cultural and political change, specifically as it relates to Crazy Rich Asians and Searching. Unfortunately, there is a small sample size to work with as far as Asian American film, which I lack significant knowledge on. Therefore, to examine this topic, I would like to offer the example of black film history in America. While there were important black film icons from before the Civil Rights movement, they were few and far between, mostly due to racism within the industry and from consumers.

In the 1960s, Sidney Poitier starred in multiple social dramas that probed the controversial topic of racism and black people's place in American society. In the '70s, blaxploitation emerged as a sub-genre that operated largely outside of large-scale Hollywood, as well as important arthouse films such as Killer of Sheep. The '80s brought along more arthouse work, such as Charles Burnett's My Brother's Wedding and Bill Gunn's Personal Problems (both by black directors with mostly black casts) as well as popular cinema such as Coming to America with Eddie Murphy. At this point, Michael Jackson was the biggest star in the world. By the '90s, two decades removed from the Voting Rights Act, Spike Lee and John Singleton were two of the most popular directors in the industry. They both started as independent filmmakers, but transitioned seamlessly into Hollywood productions without "selling out". While I largely agree with Phrukaschart, my best rebuttal toward her argument is that Malcolm X was a massive blockbuster film, playing very artfully within the "transnational aesthetic". Some of the biggest movie stars on earth were Samuel L. Jackson, Will Smith, Denzel Washington and more; simultaneously, hip hop began to emerge as the most popular genre of American music. 

This is by no means a complete history of black American film, but it is safe to say that their media representation has greatly increased since the Civil Rights movement. An important question, though... is this steady increase in representation for black Americans causing political change, or is it a result of political change? Or is there no causation at all between the two? Obviously, racism and the prison industrial complex are alive and well in America today, but it is difficult for me to assess what role television and film have played in American politics. Is it life influencing art, or art influencing life? I do not know, and I do not think there is a concrete answer.

Another point that I would like to address that relates to this topic is from Reyes and Wyatt's piece, "On the Banality of Transnational Film", in which they discuss media representation of the LGBTQ community. They write: "A burst in “New Queer Cinema” in mid-1990s independent cinema seemingly had almost no impact on studio production until, a decade later, Brokeback Mountain (2005) garnered large box office ($178 million domestic) and critical acclaim, but failed to produce any wave of LGBTQ films from major studios" (Reyes and Watts, 7). I was shocked to read this assertion, especially since it was written in 2019. While Brokeback Mountain is somewhat of an outlier, there has been endless discourse on LGBTQ acceptance. In 2016, Moonlight won best picture at the Academy Awards. In 2017, Call Me By Your Name received multiple nominations. Both were smash hits commercially, but these two are not outliers. LGBTQ representation in media has greatly increased in the past decade. 

Also, their statements on New Queer Cinema are somewhat reductive in my view. While Gregg Araki may not have had commercial success, his impact on the "high school movie" can never be understated. Films such as Clueless and Mean Girls translate Araki's formula to more accessible heteronormative narratives, and therefore achieved more commercial success. Gus Van Sant's work fits the bill for Hollywood only when his homosexuality is covert, like in Good Will Hunting. However, his impact on independent cinema is vast. Most importantly, Araki and Van Sant rarely work with a popular audience in mind.