Armond White interview by Justin Desmangles, Selma (movie) fake controversy,
 New Day Jazz, January 25, 2015
 
AW: The thing that is important is how you are human, and how do you express your humanity, and how do you develop your humanity. What is it that Johnson and King possibly could have in common? What was that remarkable thing that made them achieve a breakthrough for the world together? The side of history that they’re on, which people like to think about now, to me is not worth much. But every time I hear that phrase it’s like a pitchman’s spiel. I feel like someone’s trying to get something over on me, by talking about being on the right side of history.  We can’t all be on the right side of history but we are always human, and there’s difficulty in trying to manage our humanity and trying to connect and work with people, with each other, and I don’t like being used that way.  Every time I see that poster, and the back of that round head, I think I’m being used, Something is being sold to me, and when I see the film I'm just not convinced either.
 
JD:  This is absolutely correct, your analysis, and I would emphasize further that what your describing, in as much as Selma, the film is, among other things, a complete negation of the political, social and economic positions that Martin Luther King ascended to in 1967. And further, to the point in which he left us, that has to do with a radical critique of the way that the U.S. military serves capitalist investors, based in the U.S., to bring war to regions of the world where resources can be exploited with no benefit brought to the poor of any region. The fact that Dr. King aligned the struggle of the poor and working classes here within the U.S. with those struggles that were taking place outside, the revolutionary anti-colonial struggles and the critique of that, that’s never going to find its way into a film like Selma.  It seems like this film, is in part, among other things, a deliberate and calculated negation of where King’s thought leads us as a country.  And that’s the image, that branding of King vis-à-vis Obama, and an endorsement of electoral politics as a solution to things. It is a solution to some things, but . . .
 
AW:  That’s certainly true Justin, but I’m going to give Ava DuVernay a little bit of leeway there, just in terms of chronology.
 
JD:  O.K.
 
AW:  Since her story is limited to 1965, I can give her a little bit of break there, though still not a complete pass because the real problem, I think, with your good point, is that the film neglects to give us the roots of how King developed politically, because those roots also come from love and faith and a global sense of humanity.
 
JD:  Thank you. Yes, absolutely.
 
AW:  She doesn’t give us the roots, and that’s essential, because if he doesn’t believe in God, if he doesn’t believe in loving your fellow man, he’s not going to get to the place of global critique and that’s missing. It’s just missing.
 
JD: Armond, now can you offer some commentary in respect to the controversies that followed this film Selma, in particularly in relationship to the Academy (of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences) and the Academy Awards, to be more specific.  Can you talk to us a bit about that?
 
AW:  Well, you know, I kind of chuckled to myself a little when you mentioned Kings global politics back in 1967, and his critical view of the capitalist system, I chuckled to myself because, I thought, wow, how ironic that he is becoming a brand in the capitalist system . . .
 
JD:  That’s the ticket!
 
AW:  . . . and part of that brand, I guess the way that brands are sold today, or marketed today, is through the Academy Awards.  I’m well aware, I can’t forget Pauline Kael saying, real film critics don’t talk about the Oscars. And a point of fact, when one of my editors at National Review asked me, did I want to comment on the Selma Oscars controversy, my immediate response was no. I have nothing to say. Then as I followed the news for the rest of the day, I contacted them and said, who knew that this would become a thing, yes, I do have something to say.  And what I had to say is essentially my bafflement at how this movie has become another tool in what I think is, what I would call, white liberal repression.  And what I call repression is how white liberals want to control the way black people are seen, and they do it through very devious means.  And one of the means is to pretend that by giving rewards to certain kinds of movies about black people, that they are doing black folks a favor, when really all they are doing is making themselves feel better by, well, as I said in my National Review piece, the idea seems to be, that if we give Oscars to Selma, it will be similar to voting for Barack Obama. Because if we give Oscars to Selma, well, number one, we’re approving of the Selma March, 50 years later. And how silly that would be, how useless that is. And if we give Oscars to Selma, we’re letting the world know that, “we’re not racist!” We primarily make movies that endorse white supremacy, but we’re not racist, look how we give out Oscar’s to black folks, and look how upset we get when we give out Oscars to black folks.
 
JD:  Look how upset we get.
 
AW: O.K. You dig?
 
JD:  Yes! I mean, check it out. I also want to emphasize for listeners who may not have been following all of this, this is also happening in a context in a period in American history, right now, when White Nationalism is at an all-time high.  White Nationalist groups, throughout the USA, have membership rolls that exceed where they were, for those that existed then, at the end of the Civil War.  The Department of Justice, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, have all confirmed this.  That (White Nationalist groups) recruit directly out of the military and out of police unions. So, you know, this is not a joke. I feel in some ways they are trying to turn it into (a joke) with this fake Oscar controversy. You know, like they are kind of making fun of us in a way.
 
AW:  I hear your point, Justin. But, kind of a joke in response to that,  Lord, forgive me, I don’t mean to misquote the great Melvin Van Peebles, but I think I can quote him correctly. He was once asked, how do you feel about the Ku Klux Klan? And Melvin, who was nobody’s fool, said, “I don’t have a problem with the KKK, I know who they are, but it was not the KKK that beat my ass coming home from school every day.”  This is a good point to me, because White Nationalist groups maybe rising but, really, it’s not White Nationalist groups that I got a problem with in everyday life, its white liberals, frankly. Because they are donning their own version of racism. They get in the way of everything, and it’s a way of keeping control, of keeping their own power. And in connection to this manufactured, this bogus controversy about Selma and the Academy Awards, I think what that proves is another way that white liberals, through Hollywood, through the mainstream media, try to control the way black people are understood in movies, the way they think about black people.  As ridiculous as it is to talk about Selma being snubbed. I think people should take that word (snubbed) out of their vocabulary here, because how can it be snubbed when it got a best picture nomination? It’s just nonsense. But, in addition to what’s ridiculous about that, is this discussion that presumes to deal with racial attitudes in Hollywood, only talks about Selma, doesn’t talk about all the other very good, and I think better, films about black people that came out last year. 
 
JD:  And can you give us the titles some of those?
 
AW:  Sure, one is a film called Belle (starring Gugu Mbatha-Raw), a story about racial identity, with a biracial woman living in England in the 18th century. The other is a film called, Beyond the Lights. Oh, I should mention that Belle was written and directed by a black woman named Amma Asante. The other is Beyond the Lights, which is written and directed by a black woman, Gina Prince-Bythewood, which deals with the way that black woman deal with sexism in pop culture. And the other is the James Brown film, Get on Up, with a great performance by Chadwick Boseman. 
The people who have manufactured this bogus controversy about Selma and the Oscars have totally ignored the other movies about black condition and black experience. Why? Because it’s easier for them to appropriate the image, the marketable image of Martin Luther King and the marketable image of Barack Obama. It’s easier to use that image to control the way that race is talked about and thought about, and that s what’s really pernicious about this bogus controversy.  It’s all an attempt to make white liberals feel good, and to make black people think when white liberals acknowledge a political figure, a black political figure, that they have our best interests in mind. No, they just have our wallets in mind.  I’m not buying it.
 
JD:  Now we’re just about almost running out of time, and there’s so much that I wanted to talk about, man.
 
AW:  Well, I’m sure. And it’s one thing about popular culture, they’re will be more to say.
 
JD:  There will be more to say. Well let me leave off with this. You were very gracious to forward a press release to Ishmael Reed and myself, one that is related to Selma. An attempt on the part of filmmakers and they’re producers to turn the film, which is historically inaccurate, that doesn’t even began to describe the fabrication and fraud in this film, but nevertheless, they are trying to push it as curriculum to school children.  So, before we wrap this up, or by way of wrapping it up, and again I would like to thank you for being so generous with us, Armond, could you comment on this effort to turn the film itself into curriculum despite of its vast historical inaccuracy.
 
AW:  Oh, you want me to comment on another instance of the transparent greed?  You know, in one sense I cannot fault the publicist for Paramount, I cannot fault them for promoting their film, that’s their job. That’s what they get paid to do, but I don’t like the way they’re promoting it. And one way they’re doing it is by rounding up, and in numerous press releases, they have called black entrepreneurs across the country to buy tickets to Selma in order for high-schoolers to see the movie for free, rather than having them read a book, God forbid, but have them go pay for Selma.  And the transparent greed is that this movement, as it is called in the press releases, seems like it is this lady bountiful gift to high school students, when it is, in fact, the so-called black entrepreneurs who are putting money in the coffers of the Viacom Corporation. And its transparent greed. And its hideous. It makes me remember back in 1993 when Spielberg made Schindler's List, he also had a “movement” where high school students, and in particular black students, I think in the Oakland area, attended screenings of Schindler's List.But Spielberg was a bit more magnanimous, because those students saw Schindler's List for free. There were no black entrepreneurs paying for tickets to Schindler's List.Spielberg simply made it available, which the makers of Selma are not doing. It’s just another marketing ploy.  It’s kind of outrageous if you think about it. To pretend you’re doing a kindness to poor black students. And here we are again, the image of the downtrodden poor black person makes white liberals feel good. And to pretend that you’re doing it as a kindness to black students is absurd, when you think about what is happening at the Academy Awards, and all the prize giving guilds in Hollywood. Those guilds, they number in the thousands of people, and they all see Selma for free! So, why is it that black entrepreneurs are being duped into buying tickets to Selma? Because they think it is going to be a good thing for school students?
 
JD: Future investments. Buying an insurance policy.
 
AW: We need to teach teenagers how to go to the movies, rather than teaching them how to read, how to learn about history, how to interpret movies, how to interpret art, that’s more important but nobody is discussing that but us. 
 
JD:  Because that returns to the question of love. That returns us to the question of love and the radical potentials of loving one another. Being more easily understood, as part of that act of love.  It’s amazing. 
Well, Armond, I’m looking forward to having you back on the program, when we have time to do that, and again congratulations on the Anti-censorship American Book Award.  Very well deserved.
 
AW:  It meant a lot to me, thank you. 
 
JD:  It’s a pleasure to have you on the program.  And I encourage all of the listeners to explore and follow up on the writings of Armond White. 
 
AW:  Thank you, goodnight.
 
JD:  Good night.