PendejoJorge wrote:While Black Panther may lampshade pan-Africanism and globalization, that's ultimately not what the film is about - it's about an African dude who wears a cat suit and beats the shit out of criminals who seek to harm his homeland. I think it's a bit disingenuous to paint that film as being anything beyond a schlocky action movie, as is the case with any other superhero film.
Indeed that is a one reading of Black Panther. But superhero films, IMO, fall into the same nebulous genre definition as film noir, western, jidai geki, wuxia, et al., providing a (base, simple) storytelling and narrative foundation that can be utilized for creative improvisation. Genre films are often remarkable vehicles for artistic sophistication and sociopolitical subtextual messages - hiding in plain sight, as it were, because the expectation to do so is often nonexistent. And the reaction to Black Panther is one of this expectation, I think.
PendejoJorge wrote:People are giving a far grander reaction to this film than other black films that are far more nuanced and actually focus on socio-political issues, which goes to show that nuance is meaningless when it comes to public reaction.
And this is the rub. Yes, it would be wonderful if the world can have the same jaw-dropping, revealing viewing I once did of Med Hondo's Sarraounia; or have exposure to the works of Mambéty, Sembène, and Safi Faye; or recent work like that of Kunle Afolayan. But Black Panther gets massive screenings in Chicago - Afolayan does not. I don't think this is an issue of nuance as it is exposure. The public would respond in turn if modern theatrical distribution better accommodated them.
On the subject of exposure, I find it extremely telling that Black Panther has broken box office records in Africa, where national and local films also thrive. It is an Event, and I don't think it's because the audiences bristle at nuance or want to see "an African dude who wears a cat suit and beats the shit out of criminals who seek to harm his homeland." It probably has more to do with "an African dude who wears a cat suit and beats the shit out of criminals who seek to harm his homeland." It's touching something vital to Now that cannot be ignored by theorists or critics simply because of the costumes it wears.
Writing this made me think of my screening of Med Hondo's Sarraounia, which was over a decade ago and stays with me to this day. I was also reminded of it leaving the screening of Black Panther I went to. I'll say that for me, both films reframe unknown and latent biases towards film construction and character - what has been depicted in film art up until now. Or, it may not seem odd to you and me, but this may be the first time a film shows a black woman speaking fluent Korean. Or, Michael B. Jordan's entrance to the throne room as a clear homage to Spike Lee's dolly shots, which in itself is a powerkeg of subtext.
All of that said, I try to be careful with assuming that Disney (or any company) only cares about sameness and monotony and a lack of creative identity. And that "mass" and "popular" audiences have a broad negative caricature. It may be true at times but as a catch-all I consider it a blinder.
Perhaps this whole thing is better framed by A Certain Tendency of the Hollywood Cinema, where the author argues that Hollywood films have an "interest center" (for cape films, beating shit up, blowing up planets, cool costumes) and a "moral center" (for Black Panther, issues of non-interference vs. interference, and therefore maintaining a safe way of national life /identity vs. risk of exposure to violence). The trick is, the two centers are often contradictory if not hypocritical, and therefore these films (according to author Ray) are noncommittal to either center, and are therefore shallow. So Black Panther, like many superhero films before, can be read as supporting moral non-violence through physical violence, which is disingenuous and reeks of sameness. Which is what I think you're getting at.