Featured Image: Sorry To Bother You, ©2018
By Alex Ackerman
Introduction:
Boots Riley’s debut film Sorry To Bother You encompasses a broad range of critiques applicable to both a modern and historical context concerning racism, capitalism, and power relations as they exist within both institutions. Through the construction of the formal elements of the film, Sorry To Bother You reveals the way in which race functions as a social construct within capitalist society, therefore keeping people within an enforced hierarchy due to the way in which power relations function across these institutions. Furthermore, though Riley effectively calls into question the role of race and capitalism in suppressing certain groups of people, the treatment of women characters reveals the way in which sexism still plagues various progressive movements and calls for justice.
The field of gender and diversity in film has yielded a wide variety of theory concerning race, gender, class, and other aspects of society that influence production, consumption, spectatorship, and the nature of film itself. Influential critics ranging from bell hooks to Laura Mulvey to Donald Bogle have paved the way for modern understandings and conceptions of film and its direct relevance to shaping people’s views of gender, race, class, etc. This analysis seeks to contribute to the field a deeper understanding of how film contributes to the ongoing conversation surrounding these various aspects of identity and to illuminate the way in which film can be used as a means of criticism of the interconnected institutions that keep people in suppressed positions.
This analysis focuses on the formal elements of the film in order to illuminate Riley’s commentary on the intersection of class and race, as well as their role in perpetuating cycles of inequality. Specifically, the combination of dialogue and acting, editing, framing, and mise-en-scène contribute to the construction of this criticism. Using the lens offered by Shohat and Stam, this analysis draws upon the formal elements of the film in order to highlight Riley’s critique of United States imperialism, capitalism, and racism. In addition to this traditional analysis, this project also focuses on the limitations of Riley’s critique with regard to the role of women within the film. Using hooks’ critical texts, this analysis focuses on the formal elements of the film and the characterization of the women characters in the film in order to highlight the broader implications of the role of black women in the film.
Medium/Methodology:
In terms of major theoretical concepts used for the project, I draw upon the postcolonial lens adopted by Shohat and Stam in their text “The Imperial Imaginary.” Specifically, I utilize the idea of film as constructing a colonialist paradigm through which viewers understand their reality. Additionally, hooks’ writings on black feminism and film, specifically regarding black female sexuality, are crucial to this project with regard to the limitations of Riley’s critique of the intersection of racism and capitalism. Due to the fact that Sorry To Bother You does not fully address the experience of black women in comparison to black men and uses the women characters to serve the narrative, it is important to use hooks’ language and ideas in order to highlight the limitations of the narrative of Riley’s critique.
Concerning the medium of this project, I chose to do an analytical blog post so as to best ensure that the balance between ideas and visual elements could be maintained and portrayed in a way that the viewer can understand them. Since my analysis relies on a combination of theoretical and formal elements, a blog post ensures that my ideas flow logically and are organized, enabling the viewer to understand the development of my ideas and thought process. The emphasis on the visual element is also crucial to my project, since it is the formal elements of the film that convey the broader themes of the intersection of capitalism and racism, as well as the limitation of those themes in completely addressing the experiences of black women. As such, a blog post enables me to focus on my analysis through the presentation of the visual elements of the film and their connection to the broader themes of my analysis.
Research:
In the text “The Imperial Imaginary,” Shohat and Stam argue that film directly reflects the West’s history of white domination, as film visually constructs an imperialist paradigm through which spectators perceive history and non-white groups through a colonial, capitalist lens. Due to the inherited tradition of realism in relation to portraying national imaginaries, cinema is “ideally suited to relay the projected narratives of nations and empires” (102). In this light, film sutures the viewer into adopting an imperialist, capitalist point of view. In constructing a national self-conscious and perceptions of history, film not only is influenced by an imperialist, capitalist societal lens, but also constructs this reality and reinforces this paradigm. Shohat and Stam argue that “[d]ominant narratives about colonial encounters suggest that ‘we,’ while imperfect, are at least human, while the non-European ‘they’ are irrational and subhuman” (120). This dehumanization of a non-white ‘other’ is necessitated by the imperialist, capitalist structure that are a key part of Western society.
As such, Riley is operating within this context as he subverts the traditional Western paradigm in his film. Despite the fact that he is operating within mainstream Hollywood conventions, through the film, Riley directly condemns United States imperialism and the factors that reinforce it, including capitalism, as they play key roles in the narrative. That said, through using film to critique capitalism and its consequences on everyday workers, Riley is drawing upon a history of Marxist filmmakers using their craft as a means of activism that challenges dominant modes of thought and production (Mazierska and Kristensen 218). In the construction of the formal elements of the film, the film manifests a critique of U.S. imperialism and of the ways in which capitalism and racism intersect and function to perpetuate inequality. In turn, the formal elements of the film also reveal the limitations of Riley’s critique with regard to the treatment of the few women characters, especially the character of the black woman.
Riley uses a variety of formal elements within the film in order to develop his criticism of both racism and capitalism. Crucial to his critique are the combination of performance and dialogue, as it is through these mechanisms that Riley calls into question the constructs of race and class and the way in which they determine one’s success within society. In his critique, Riley introduces the alienation that one feels under capitalism through dialogue, as the main character, Cassius Green, says “What will I have done that matters?” (Sorry To Bother You). This question demonstrates the desire to find meaning in a system that devalues finding one’s personal meaning, instead favoring one’s productivity and ability to contribute to the capitalist system. Additionally, the framing and mise-en-scène of the telemarketing office in which Cassius works belies the conformity required under capitalism and the sense of mass production that is prioritized in the name of productivity. The uniformity of the rows of desks where telemarketers work combined with the neutral colors of the office space suggest the emphasis on a lack of meaning and a sense of alienation that capitalism entails.
With regard to the importance of dialogue, another key quote is spoken by Cassius as he says “You don’t get to decide what’s black and what’s white,” in response to his friend Fowler saying that “if you don’t cook the spaghetti in the sauce with the cheese in it first, that’s some white shit” (Sorry To Bother You). In the context of the rather playful scene, Riley illuminates the constructed nature of race, despite the fact that it plays such a prevalent role in determining one’s opportunities and experiences within society. Further highlighting the constructed nature of race, especially as it functions within capitalism, is the intersection of acting and dialogue through Cassius adopting a ‘white voice’ in order to move up within the company and find financial success. The use of acting and its intersection with the dialogue are crucial to Riley’s critique of both racism and capitalism in that it is through Cassius’ performance as ‘white’ using his voice, apparent through the dialogue, that he is able to advance under the capitalist system. This demonstration of his success in relation to his perceived whiteness through his voice calls into question what whiteness is. Given Cassius’ development throughout the narrative and the way in which he becomes more deeply entrenched in using his relation to whiteness to advance, Riley suggests that whiteness can be understood through power and access to such power, especially since it is through Cassius’ use of his ‘white voice’ that he is able to prioritize his individual success, even at the cost of abandoning the collective movement to unionize led by his friends and coworkers.
In this context, using one’s ‘white voice’ is the means by which one can transcend one’s perceived race, illuminating the way in which race functions as a construction rather than a fixed, inherent feature, thus revealing Riley’s critique of the power assigned to this arbitrary concept. When he first begins to use his ‘white voice,’ Cassius is told by one of his coworkers that adopting this voice is not “about sounding all nasal” (Sorry To Bother You). Rather, it entails:
“sounding like you don’t have a care. Got your bills paid, you’re happy about your future. You about ready to jump in your Ferrari out there after you get off this call….It’s not really a white voice. It’s what they wish they sounded like. So it’s like what they think they’re supposed to sound like” (Sorry To Bother You).
As such, through the dialogue and the portrayal of the ‘white voice,’ one can see the power dynamics concerning race that relate to how different groups function under capitalism and the way in which they are able to access power within this individualistic, laissez-faire system.
Furthermore, through these formal elements, Riley subverts the colonialist point of view described by Shohat and Stam, as he directly challenges the very construction of race on which the dehumanization of the ‘other’ is predicated. In visually demonstrating the dissonance between Cassius’ appearance and voice, Riley plays with the the idea of suture, as the conflict between at hand portrayed through the performance and dialogue calls the viewer to question their perceived notions of race and class, as opposed to accepting an imperialist, capitalist point of view.
- Sorry To Bother You, ©2018, Annapurna Pictures
Another formal aspect of the film that plays with suture, consequently drawing the viewer out of the film, is the use of the shot and the cut, specifically the dolly zoom. The use of this technique in the context of the scene demonstrates the way in which Cassius is subject to the allure of capitalism based on wealth and individual success. The use of the shot and the cut in this scene disrupts the viewer in order to make them consider the implications that capitalism poses for Cassius, especially given that he crosses the picket line in order to access the power that the company promises him. As such, the conflict that capitalism fundamentally poses–personal gain at the expensive of general inequality–is revealed not only through this specific shot but also more generally through Cassius’ individual conflict and motivations.
Furthermore, the context of the strike in which the film takes place shows the different aspects of organizing contrasted with the ways in which capitalism corrupts people within the system. At beginning of the film, it is made clear that the characters, including Cassius and others in his neighborhood, are not financially well-off. These visual and verbal cues suggest the pervasive nature of poverty specifically among black populations, thus framing Cassius’ decision to break the picket line in a broader context of structural inequality. As such, with regard to the context of the beginning of the film, Riley highlights the way in which people are forced to compromise their values and identities, including their rose, in order to pursue individual gain and betterment.
Another key piece of dialogue that demonstrates the subversion of Shohat and Stam’s idea of an imperialist paradigm is the character Mr. Blank’s statement about the business that transpires between the telemarketing company where Cassius works, RegalView, and the powerful corporation WorryFree. Mr. Blank, Cassius’ supervisor, informs Cassius that “We sell power” (Riley). In fact, it is revealed that the ‘Power Callers,’ the position to which Cassius has advanced, sell arms and unpaid human labor (i.e. slaves) to WorryFree on behalf of RegalView. What is especially revealing about these transactions is that the telemarketers are only allowed to sell to WorryFree using their ‘white voices.’ As such, Riley offers a biting critique not only of the intersection of racism and capitalism, but also specifically of United States imperialism and its role in perpetuating inequality on a systemic level.
The ways in which different power relations function in sustaining this system of structural inequality reveal how white access to power pervades all aspects of society, from domestic issues of race to international, capitalist relations amongst a variety of entities. The fact that black men are in these roles related to whiteness and power complicates the matter, especially considering the role that black women play within the film more broadly. That black men are the means by which these relations take place, and that they are accessing power through their relation to whiteness, demonstrates the incentives and individual desire to seek out and gain power under a capitalist system, even at the expense of others’ wellbeing.
In light of women characters’ access to power and the contrast between the portrayal of men and women in the film, Sorry To Bother You and the critique it presents demonstrate the way in which black women are still relegated to secondary roles within a progressive narrative. The lack of development of the female characters shows the limitations of Riley’s critique, especially when one compares Cassius’ development to that of Detroit’s, who is Cassius’ love interest.
bell hooks’ work is formative to the development of this argument, as it is through this lens that the limitations of Riley’s critique are revealed. Other black feminist critics have greatly contributed to this work as well, such as Algernon Austin, who illustrates the phenomenon of sexism in the black community, as well black feminist responses to this sexism in her text “Theorizing Difference within Black Feminist Thought: The Dilemma of Sexism in Black Communities.” Through this black feminist lens, one can better understand the way in which Detroit’s character functions within the narrative, relegating her to a secondary role.
Within Sorry To Bother You, Detroit, performed by Tessa Thompson, serves as the love interest to Cassius. Through both visual and verbal cues, one can see that Detroit is subject to the same financial situation as Cassius and others within their neighborhood, given that her profession is to twirl signs outside of a storefront. As such, Detroit does not maintain any advantage over Cassius in terms of status or class, since they both suffer from the same conditions under capitalism, consequently resulting in their alienation. In light of this alienation, Detroit engages in the movement to unionize, which is organized by the character Squeeze, played by Steven Yeun. In her active participation in the resistance movement, Detroit grows apart from Cassius, thus serving as a microcosm for the broader conflict between resistance, including art and union organization, and capitalism and the individualistic mindset that it entails.
Additionally, through the character of Detroit, one can perceive the intersection of race, class, and gender, which Riley fails to address to the fullest extent. Activist and scholar Angela Davis writes that the “enormous space that work occupies in Black women’s lives today follows as a pattern established during the very earliest days of slavery” (9). In this context, one can understand the context and significance of Detroit being a member of the movement to unionize their telemarketing workplace, given that black women have been forced to work for as long as they have been in the United States as slaves. However, Riley does not focus on the intersection of gender with class and race, instead prioritizing the evils of capitalism and imperialism that predicate the maintenance of a racial hierarchy. As such, the treatment of the character Detroit within the narrative represents a broader theme of the lack of focus on black women within progressive movements, even among those that seek to achieve equality.
One can argue that, in terms of the narrative, Detroit serves as a foil to Cassius. While Cassius seeks out meaning through his personal advancement in RealView, Detroit finds meaning in creating her art and organizing outside of the system, rather than within it. Detroit’s art serves as both a function of the narrative and as part of Riley’s larger critique. For example, one can see the importance of art in creating meaning through an exchange between Detroit and Squeeze. While Detroit is at her job of twirling signs, Squeeze visits her and demonstrates his capability of twirling signs, which he learned while helping sign twirlers unionize in a different part of California. When questioned by Detroit whether he stirs up trouble, Squeeze says in his defense, “Trouble’s already there. I just help folks fix it.” In response, Detroit says that helping people fix the trouble is “what [she does] with her art: expose the bullshit.” As such, through Riley’s use of dialogue, one can see the connection between art and organizing, since both offer a means of finding purpose and creating meaning out of a racist, capitalist society in which one is stripped of their humanity.
More broadly, the intersection of art and activism is crucial to Riley’s critique of capitalism and racism.Through creating these alternative methods of opposition, including the emphasis on visual art, Detroit and other characters are able to function outside of the imperialist paradigm with which Cassius chooses to engage, thus demonstrating the importance of art in creating these avenues that remain critical of and resistant to dominant modes of thought that dictate society and one’s place within it. The emphasis on Detroit’s art and outside organization enables Riley to demonstrate the flaws of Cassius’ approach to working within RealView both for personal financial gain and a sense of accomplishment. Rather than succumbing to capitalist pressures to advance within a company, Riley suggests the importance of collective action and the pursuit of alternate modes of finding accomplishment and meaning within a capitalist system that perpetuates unequal distributions of power.
In addition to this broader societal critique, the role of art simultaneously drives the plot in that Detroit and her role as an artist further the conflict between herself and Cassius, as he grows more invested within the company, furthering a divide within their relationship. As Cassius becomes more deeply entrenched within RealView, he loses sight not only of himself but also of what is important within his life, primarily his relationship with Detroit. Once he and Detroit end their relationship, Cassius realizes what he has lost and seeks to regain his relationship with her, though the existence of their relationship directly contradicts Cassius’ involvement with the imperialist ideologies of RealView. It is after Cassius leaves Detroit’s art exhibition that he attends a party hosted by the CEO of the company WorryFree, with whom RealView conducts business, Steve Lift.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZcxtsQgHww
- Sorry To Bother You, ©2018, Annapurna Pictures
At this point in the narrative, Cassius discovers Lift’s true intentions for the company and for himself, revealing the way in which capitalism is based on constant expansion, even at the expense of human lives. It is through the conflict that arises out of Detroit’s art exhibition that Cassius attends Lift’s party, thus propelling the climax of the film. Through this manner, Detroit’s art and the conflict stemming from her relationship with Cassius drive the narrative and its critique of the intersection of capitalism and racism.
However, the fact that it is only through Cassius that Detroit’s character is understood reveals the limitations of Riley’s critique. Detroit’s character lacks motivation outside of her relationship to Cassius, given that it is through the use of contrast between Cassius and Detroit that the viewer is able to understand Cassius’ characterization and the critique that Riley constructs. The primary difference between Detroit and Cassius that is of concern lies in that Cassius is developed beyond his relation to this conflict in ideology, whereas Detroit merely serves as a means of furthering the narrative or representing the contrast between capitalism and resistance. As such, in this light, she is not afforded the same humanity as Cassius, which is apparent in the formal elements of the film as well.
For example, though Detroit’s art plays an important role within the film, the way in which her performance art is manifest through the costuming, or lack thereof, during her exhibition demonstrates the limitations of Riley’s critique from a feminist perspective. During the performance, part of Detroit’s art is the presentation of her body, almost completely naked, during which she calls upon the audience to throw items representative of colonial exploitation at her body, bringing to light her critique, and Riley’s, of the ways in which capitalism and imperialism intersect in order to perpetuate systems of inequality, especially among those countries already historically exploited by these institutions.
That said, in this scene, the character of Detroit is still objectified as a woman, despite the fact that the gaze of the camera occurs within the context of the presentation of her art. Regardless of the context within the film, the scene calls into question the reasoning behind Detroit’s almost-nudity, making the viewer wonder what purpose this specific means of costuming serves within the scene and the narrative as a whole. Though the scene itself is not inherently sexual, Detroit is marked by her gender in this scene, especially given that none of the men within the film are subject to the same type of vulnerability on screen. hooks writes that “[r]epresentations of black female bodies in contemporary popular culture rarely subvert or critique images of black female sexuality which were part of the cultural apparatus of 19th-century racism and which still shape perceptions today” (62). The sexualization of Detroit thus reveals the limitations of Riley’s critique since portraying her in this light falls into the same patterns of the sexualization of black women that distinguishes them from black men in the unique forms of exploitation, both historical and modern, that they have confronted.
In this manner, one can see the way in which Riley’s critique of capitalism and racism still falls short in addressing an equally important oppressive structure: sexism, specifically misogynoir. The treatment of Detroit within this scene, highlighted by her lack of clothing, demonstrates the expendability not only of her body but also her character itself. Rather than subvert this historically exploitative practice, Riley does not explicitly address the implications of this scene, nor the holistic treatment of black women within the film. Many scenes actively critique or reference the impact of racism and capitalism on the everyday citizens, exemplified through Cassius, but few scenes grapple with the realities that are specific to what black women experience under a capitalist society.
Another crucial aspect of the limitations of Riley’s critique of racism and capitalism is the fact that the narrative focuses on Detroit’s relationship to other men, rather than affording her the same development that Cassius and other male characters are given. One can see this exemplified in her interactions with Cassius and Squeeze. For example, it is revealed that Detroit slept with Squeeze after the relationship between Cassius and Detroit ended. Once this plot point is made clear, Cassius actively seeks to regain his relationship with Detroit, prompting him to denounce RegalView, as does the fact that he might turn into an ‘equisapien,’ an orchestration of Lift. As Detroit grows apart from Cassius, the viewer retains the sense of separation portrayed in the film due to the increase in Cassius’ wealth and betrayal of who he is. Therefore, she is used to highlight Cassius’ departure from and return to resistance to capitalism and racism, rather than simply existing on her own terms.
The fact that with whom Detroit shares a relationship is treated to be equally important as Detroit herself demonstrates the way in which the narratives fails to encompass Detroit’s character in the same way as Cassius. As such, the limitations of Riley’s critique, specifically through the character of Detroit and her relationship to the men in the narrative, are representative of the broader shortcomings within progressive movements to effectively address the ways in which women, especially black women, uniquely experience capitalism and racism.
With regard to the limitations of Riley’s critique, it is important to mention the burden of representation and its role in the consumption of Sorry To Bother You. Due to the lack of representation of black women, it is critical to examine the implications of the film from a lens that encompasses the reality for this specific group. However, these limitations of the film do not negatively affect the quality of Riley’s criticism of the intersection of racism and capitalism within an imperialist society such as the United States. Simply, the demonstration of the limitations of the film with regard to sexism, especially concerning black women, seeks to highlight the pervasive nature of structural inequalities and the difficulty of sharing a variety of stories from those who have been historically oppressed that people still confront today.
Sorry To Bother You is a unique film in its explicit condemnation of racism and United States imperialism within a global capitalist context. Through the lens of Shohat and Stam’s “Imperial Imaginary,” one can understand the function of the formal elements of the film in constructing Riley’s critique. Additionally, using the works of hooks and Davis, can also illuminate the limitations of Riley’s cinematic critique concerning the role of black women and their role within a broader resistance movement. In doing so, this project has sought to demonstrate the nuances that are key to such a bold text such as Sorry To Bother You, as the film encompasses both progress and limitations with regard to gender and diversity in film.
Bibliography/Works Cited:
Gillespie, Michael Boyce. Film Blackness: American Cinema and the Idea of Black Film. Duke UP, 2016. Print.
hooks, bell. “Selling Hot Pussy.” Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston, South End Press, 1992.
Riley, Boots, director. Sorry To Bother You. ©2018, Annapurna Pictures.
Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. Chatto and Windus, 1993. Print.
Shohat, Ella and Robert Stam. “The Imperial Imaginary.” Unthinking Eurocentrism. Routledge, 1994.
Gender and Diversity in Film 