Site icon Intellectuals Bi-Quarterly

Chapters 4 and 5 – The Illusion of Art in a Kafkaesque World – A Critical Comparison of Tyler Perry’s Diary of a Mad Black Woman and Darren Aronofsky’s Black Swan

  • MD

    • Today I write to you in the send off of the first 10% of my director journey.  It has been a long time coming, but after many months of processing and re-processing what I have watched, I am ready to share it with you all.  I have stared into the void, and it has stared back into me.  While certainly not the worst experience thus far, it was the most surreal.

    It goes without saying that Black Swan is great and Diary of a Mad Black Woman is not great.  In fact, Black Swan is one of my favorite movies of all time, from one of my favorite directors of all time.  I could probably write a 30 page blog post about everything in it, but I will not.  Instead, in this post, I will aim to show through the comparison of these films what makes a movie bad or good, based on my personal opinion.  That strikes me as a better and more interesting exercise. I feel like I’ve been writing too many synopses of the movies I’ve been reviewing, but if you want the short summary, here is Black Swan and here is Diary of a Mad Black Woman.

    iM mOrE oF a sTrUcTuRe gUy

    I know it’s really fucking obnoxious to say but unfortunately I am one of those people.  First, I do think it’s pretty important for a film to have a set structure and follow at least some Aristotelian unities to be able to tell a compelling story.  What I mean by that is a film should generally follow the unities of (1) time, (2) place, and most importantly, (3) action.  Respectively, that mean’s there should generally speaking be a consistency in time period over which the events of the film occur, the setting where it occurs, and a logical sequence of one event leading into another.  It’s probably the biggest distinction between books and film scripts.  In a book, it’s totally fine to jump around to all different time periods and story lines to build a narrative, whereas when you have 90 minutes + to tell a distinct story, the realities of that constraint mean that deviating too much just creates confusion.

    A good example is Stephen King’s IT.  That book constantly goes back and forth between the adult storylines and the childhood storylines as the adults remember more about what happened to them as kids.  If you were to do that in a movie, it would be all the fuck over the place and nothing would make sense. Sidenote – they should definitely do an It miniseries.  And keep the underage sewer sex orgy.  The movie has gruesome child murders for fucks sake, but for some reason we shy away from this unique form of Stephen King cocaine induced perversion.

    I’ll grind this axe at a later date

    You can see this difference on full display in Black Swan and Diary of a Mad Black Woman.  Black Swan is a masterclass in telling a story through the framework of the unities of time, place and action.  The audience follows (literally in many instances throughout the ballet studio in the first act) a single character, through a near-constant period of time and space.  There are only 5 total settings throughout the film, and really there are only 2: Nina’s house and the ballet studio.  We also really only have 3 characters to work with in Black Swan: Nina, Lily and Thomas.  Nina is the protagonist, Lily is the foil and Thomas is (somewhat) the antagonist.  Complicated frameworks to tell a story do not make a story more effective, smart or genius.  By sticking to a simpler structure, Aronofsky and Andres Heinz (screenwriter) can go way deeper into these characters, their motives, and their interactions with each other.  We aren’t wasting time with other storylines and keeping the audiences attention on what’s important.

    Contrast this with Diary of a Mad Black Woman we have the following storylines and characters:

    That is so much going on, and you could easily cut most of this. It distracts from the story, and leaves a ton of characters with nothing to do. Perfect example is the storyline with the crackhead wife who is just kind of like, roaming around the neighborhood giving sexual favors for drugs (what the fuck Tyler Perry).  This story has very little point except to fill air time and cynically pull on the audiences’ heart strings.  It gives nothing to the narrative whatsoever.

    Another important part of structure that I think makes a good movies is hitting the correct narrative beats. Everyone knows this as “the three act structure,” but it’s a bit more than that.  I think it’s a helpful way for a film to be able to ensure there is strong pacing and there is sufficient action to keep the audience invested and interested.  It also ensures that your story is actually compelling and moves towards a satisfying conclusion.

    Again, Black Swan does this perfectly. 

    Diary of a Mad black Woman is not able to provide as strong of a structural setup because there are too many storylines to deal with.  There are arguably two different parallel climaxes to act three: (1) Charles being able to walk again after God heals him in the church, and (2) Helen accepting Orlando’s proposal.  Both, while being unwatchable generally, fuck with the structure such that there are multiple false endings to the movie for the audience.

    As such, a film which is grounded in a strong structure is actually able to do more, not less.  While there is this notion that a film is “simplistic” because it adheres to traditional structure, I think really all that means is that you are providing a solid foundation so you can actually create complexity to the story.  Diary of a Mad Black Woman is more structurally complex, but it is not more narratively complex. If anything, I would call it confusing.  By failing to have a sound structure, Tyler Perry is unable to delve into any particular character, and is forced into following up on irrelevant sub plots which distract from the main narrative.  In contrast, Aronfosky is not subject to these constraints.  He is able to put more of his voice into the characters on the rails of the above structure, and build up more stylistic and symbolic elements.  I think even directors who tell unconventionally structured stories could have told the story better had they provided more focus (see, e.g., Django Unchained).[1]

    Symbolism as a Concept and When it Matters

    Going back to Aristotle again (I’m sorry) there is a quote which sticks out to me for why I do think it’s important that a movie say something in the abstract.

    “It is, moreover, evident from what has been said, that it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen—what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity. The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose. The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still be a species of history, with meter no less than without it. The true difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular. By the universal I mean how a person of a certain type on occasion speak or act, according to the law of probability or necessity; and it is this universality at which poetry aims in the names she attaches to the personages.”

    (Aristotle’s Poetics, Part IX) (emphasis added).

    I think film as an art form in its best state does in fact try to tell a greater story than the immediate narrative.  It should provide something beyond showing what is currently, literally happening to the characters (i.e., “express[ing] the universal, [rather than] the particular”).

    I also don’t think that symbolism, allegory or a character study film is necessarily better or worse because it is easy to grasp.  Sometimes I think people confuse easily understandable or digestible with surface level.  A symbol being readily understood by most viewers could just mean that the director has effectively conveyed it to the viewer.[2]

    I really like how Black Swan utilizes these aspects.  You have the more micro-symbolism aspects (Nina = young girl in Spanish; Nina’s clothing changes from white, to grey, to black as the film progresses), to allegory (the entire film is a re-telling of Swan Lake; the entire film is about puberty and sexual awakening)[3], to character study (the film is a cautionary tale of the self-destructive power of ambition).  So the film is hitting you with these abstract narratives on three different levels, and it enriches your experience as a whole.  It makes it really re-watchable to be able to pick out more and more, and shows the directorial voice which went into it. 

    Diary of a Mad Black Woman has none of this.  It’s basically just a revenge story, but it also just kind of meanders and is really difficult to grasp if there is a higher meaning or purpose to what is being conveyed.  I think this can mostly be summed up by the fact that Diary of a Mad Black Woman is not trying to make an intellectual point per se, rather than it is an exercise in economic exploitation.[4]

    I think a good example of purposeless surface-level symbolism is (sorry Darren) Mother!  The entire movie is a giant allegory for the Bible, but the message is what is unclear, and which leads to its downfall.  Everyone knows that there is Biblical shit happening, but it’s not really evident what Aronofsky is going for.  Do we give a shit that the Bible happened?  Do we care that he is able to make a decent re-creation of it?  People are bad I guess?  It’s just kind of trite and not well done.  Contrast this with Black Swan, which you can pick out what is happening as it’s happening (I realize everyone and their mom knows it is a retelling of Swan Lake), but it actually has a message about ambition, sexuality and the price of greatness.  It’s the purpose behind the symbolism or allegory which makes it effective. When you have a movie like Mother!, which sort of creates an allegory just for the gimmick of it, it isn’t effective and it doesn’t really utilize the tool in the director’s toolbox well.  Ultimately, symbolic storytelling is a means to an end, but there needs to be a clear and defined end unto itself.  Otherwise you’re just jerking yourself off.

    In short, while not necessary, I tend to enjoy films that have these types of symbolic or allegorical aspects.  It enhances the viewing experience because it uses the medium of a single microcosm of events to tell us something about society or ourselves.  It also lets you feel snooty as fuck when you point it out.

    Good Acting Overcomes Bad Characters, But Not Vice Versa

    “Fundamentally, actors are a race apart. This group is divided into two sections: first, those who have talent and have never received any recognition for it, and, second, those who have received recognition without having any talent. Either way, they’re cattle.”

    Alfred Hitchcock
    God I hated this movie

    Ultimately, I think aside from the script and narrative driven by the director, the actors are the number one element which can enhance a film.  I have seen extremely terrible movies which are enhanced by an actor giving it 100%, and have seen movies completely tank because the lead is completely checked out.  A strong performance is able to overcome systemic issues with the underlying content, and is a way a work can be uniquely elevated.  In fact, looking through my base MD index reviews, a 10 on the acting score is very highly correlated with a high overall impression score:

    MovieScoreScript/StoryActingCharactersVisualsSoundOverall Impression
    The Shining589101010910
    Magnolia571010108910
    American Beauty561010910710
    Raw561010910710
    American Psycho55101098810
    Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind54101098710
    12 Years a Slave5281098710
    The Shape of Water52610810108
    Beasts of No Nation4910108768
    Dark Knight497109869
    Princess Mononoke60101010101010

    Weirdly enough, Natalie Portman has had simultaneously some of the worst acting and best acting I’ve seen from someone.  Maybe Black Swan was able to get her out of her shell?  Certainly it was a better result than this garbage.  Maybe Natalie was just traumatized by George Lucas’ dressmaking workshop.

    It’s probably a good time to point out that probably the worst failing of Tyler Perry’s Diary of a Mad Black Woman – is Tyler Perry.  I actually think the movie starts out somewhat okay.  We are introduced to Helen, who is kicked out of her house by her cheating husband, and she is forced to abandon the mansion of her marriage to the slums of singledom, epitomized by her grandmother Medea’s house.  The major downfall of the narrative is that Tyler Perry’s own ego gets in the way of a compelling performance.  He plays both Medea and the aggressively angel-hearted Brian, and needs to make sure he is on screen at least 95% of the time.  Medea’s character is awful and is basically like if you replaced Obi-Wan Kenobi in the Phantom Menace with Jar-Jar Binks.  Certainly terrible as the comic relief, but even worse as your second lead.  A good example is when Medea pulls out a gun after convincing Helen to sneak back into Charles house and just starts spewing random insults for a full 20 minutes straight.  It’s off tone, it is extremely bizarre, isn’t funny, and is borderline minstrelism in that  the humor is coming from the older black woman mannerisms Perry is imitating rather than any kind of joke.

    Here, we have an example of bad actors and bad characters.  A strong performance by Perry could have carried the day over the character failings of Medea, but that is not the case. Mister Perry should have stuck to what he does now in most of his movies – playing the one good guy character in a vain attempt to make up for the blood on his hands left after the murder of film as an art form.

    Visuals and Sound Can Enhance, but Cannot Carry

    I won’t belabor the point here, but generally speaking I think of amazing visuals and sound in a film as more of an enhancing spice rather than the meat and potatoes.  I fully recognize that some people will heavily disagree with me here.  I think my overall point is just that the framework of a strong narrative is what gets me interested in a film, and then great visuals, score, sound editing, production, etc. helps to enhance my experience, but a great style by itself without a narrative sort of takes me out of it.  It’s generally why I shy away from Wes Anderson movies.  The dude is no doubt talented, but I just think he gets in his own way with the stylization and neglects to say anything in his movies aside from just creating a Wes Anderson vibe.  Like I’m not really sure if there is a message to Moonrise Kingdom.  Stuff just kind of happens and it’s quirky as all fuck, but it overall just feels sort of empty.  It’s borderline a demo of a really cool visual style, but without any kind of application for it. 

    I think the same could be set about the score of a film.  If that was gonna carry the day, I’d buy the album and skip the movie.

    Authorial Intent is Important – and for Tyler Perry, Corrupts[5]

    Now this is where we finally get to the Kafkaesque part of our story.  Much like Kafka’s own hunger artist, film as an art form is cannibalizing itself and Tyler Perry is Chronos in the baby’s crib. 

    There is a concept I would like to talk about which was introduced to me in a 2015 Red Letter Media video reviewing the film What’s Your Number.  In it, the reviewers describe how the movie is something pumped out by the studio to tug on the heartstrings of single women to churn out an efficiently made product for profit.  Over the years, I have come to describe this concept as “Film as Toothpaste.”  It’s the idea that you aren’t making a movie to say anything, or to do anything aside from pure surface-level entertainment.  It’s a cheaply made commodity you consume like a McDonalds hamburger, enjoy in the moment, and never think about again.  It’s a movie you make for the lowest dollar amount possible, to produce the highest profit margin possible, and which appeals to the lowest common denominator of the audience.  It is the toothpaste you purchase at CVS because you need it at that time, but not something that really sticks with you or is special to you.

    Tyler Perry’s Diary of a Mad Black Woman is film as toothpaste.  There is no intent to tell a story, or to do anything aside from make the movie to sell tickets.  Throughout the entire course of the movie’s marketing, runtime and ten thousand sequels, it is put forward for the purpose of creating a black demographic equivalent to early 90’s single white female rom coms. It is cynical perversly twists everything good and holy about cinema to an Intellectual.

    So anyway, Diary of a Mad Black Woman is the most racist film since The Birth of a Nation.[6]  It essentially just feeds on black stereotypes related to poverty, addiction, theft, mannerisms and religion to create something which seems familiar to an “in” group, but is really just exploitative.  The fact that Tyler Perry is himself black does not make it any less fucked up and offensive that this entire movie is meant to just chug at the heart strings of a single group and pump out a crappy cheap product which absolutely no substance whatsoever.  It honestly is harmful because it just reinforces stereotypes for racist white people, and is created solely for blacksploitation.  But here, the blacksploitationists have gotten smarter.  Like The Invisible Man, they have put out Tyler Perry as a front, and have extended the exploitation actors to the audience who eat their popcorn and consume their toothpaste.

    It’s probably obvious to most people viewing it, but it’s also a huge problem.  In my view, it’s movies like this than make my skin crawl and just signal the slow death of film as an art form within the high-budget brackets. You can’t really make a high-budget art film anymore, or even an original film really, because it’s considered “too risky.”  Good the fuck job on Denis Villeneuve for tricking studios into continuing to fund his 70+ million dollar art films, because I have no idea how he has had that racket going so long.  It’s why when people try to argue bUt iTs jUsT a pOpCoRn mOvIe it’s way more sinister than that.  Movies shouldn’t get a pass just because you recognize they were lazily created.  It’s fine to be entertained by it, but just fucking own that you are consuming shit.  I like consuming shit just as much as the next guy – it’s part of the circle of life.  I for one really enjoy the Underworld movies because of the strong and independent figure of Kate Beckinsale.

    The shitty part of it is that Hollywood just doesn’t invest in art movies anymore because people think it’s okay at this point.  Even though high-budget wide release art films can actually be accessible and successful.

    Oh right, I should make my point about the movies I’m reviewing. 

    I guess what I’m saying is that the fact that we all know that Diary of a Mad Black Woman is meant to be an exploitative piece of garbage doesn’t mean that I need to give it more credence or leeway.  It doesn’t deserve to be graded on a curve.  In fact, the fact that I know the director could give less of a shit about the authorial message is a totally valid reason for me to have distaste for it and make it lose even more points.

    At the end of the day, I’m just dismayed we will never have another Matrix, or anything aside from a sequel, reboot, soft reboot, prequel, tie-in, Marvel Movie or Denis Villeneuve embezzlement scheme ever again.  Instead, we will waste away as Kafka’s hunger artist as the world passes us by and consumes its toothpaste.

    Final Scores

    Diary of a Mad Black Woman – Script/Story (2); Acting (3); Characters (1); Visuals (4); Sound (4); Overall Impression (1).  Total – 15

    Black Swan – Script/Story (10); Acting (9); Characters (10); Visuals (10); Sound (9); Overall Impression (10).  Total – 58

    [1] What I mean by this is that while a film can be successful and effective with an unconventional structure, that is not proof that traditional structure is not necessary, or is not better overall. It’s really more of a “this director is good enough to succeed with a handicap” than anything else in my opinion. But I digress.

    [2] It should be noted that there are some schools of thought which would attribute this kind of thing to other “authors” of the film rather than a director. A script writer could call for something which expresses the symbolism, or the art director could be the one who gives someone the red dress to wear.  I tend to follow the auteur theory on this one, but recognize that reasonable minds can differ on this point.

    [3] I highly recommend Raw (2016) for this.

    [4] See, infra, Authorial Intent is Important, and for Tyler Perry, Corrupts

    [5] This section is fully set up for the purpose of citing my own concurrence.

    [6] Disclaimer: I reserve the right to be completely wrong and this rant is simply just a white savior complex and I am, in fact, the one being racist.

    Exit mobile version