Hollywood loves its Black pain porn, and many Black artists/people like to be scratched behind the
ear by the Hollywood industry, feasting on white affirmation.
I hear this argument a lot, though it never truly sinks in for me. "Hollywood" loves "pain porn" in general. Go through the list of Best Picture nominees and winners, and you could count with your fingers the films that don't have a focus on extremely painful topics. Hell, go through literature and you'll find the same thing. Dramas and prestige fiction tend to examine the human condition through pain, misery, depression, violence, war, etc.
It had many of the contemporary-accepted Black pain porn tropes: tortured Black gay male, abusive drug using mother, neighborhood drug dealer with a heart of gold, hyper-masculine classroom tough.
Every piece of contemporary fiction has accepted tropes. Name one film that doesn't...
Merely pointing out tropes doesn't really serve as effective criticism.
The Wire had every single one of those "accepted black pain porn tropes" that you just mentioned, and it's no better or lesser for having them. It's the execution that matters...
I think it's also worth noting that the story was heavily based on the actual lives of the director/screenwriter, and the guy who wrote the play. It wasn't a studio by committee film written by white people checking off boxes of "stuff white people love" to appeal to white people.
This story was more than ten years old before it was even conceived as a film. Both writers grew up in Liberty City, had drug addicted mothers, and one of them wrote the original play to deal with the death of his mother from aids. I could feel the catharsis throughout the film, but especially when the forgiveness scene between the mother and son happened.
"Trope", sure, but real and relevant all the same.
It would have been nice to find out whether Chiron was a good or bad student in school,
but we really don't know because his "internal struggle" was the focus of the entire film.
Fair point, I can see how that would be an issue for you. But since this was a slice of life film, and none of the snapshots from his prepubescent, teenage, and adult life last very long, I think it was a wise choice to leave certain aspects of his life up for interpretation. I've seen plenty of films with the same subjects that flat out tell you "he struggles in school because of his home situation", but I like that the film didn't hold anybody's hand here. Thematically, I think it fit for them to have you figure certain aspects of his personality based on the limited scenes.
For example, I found out just by watching that he didn't like sports, but he did like dancing. And that gave me insight into what he would have been doing for after school activities, if he wasn't so closed off from the rest of the world. It gave the pieces, and let me put the puzzle together of who this kid was based on what I was given.
It's all about his fight with "masculinity," but very little addressing his humanity.
I feel the entire film was addressing his humanity. Identity is perhaps the most intimate subject that can be examined in regards to human beings.
Who am I? Answering that question is addressing your humanity.
I read a bunch of reviews that this was the most artful Black film ever shot. The winner and still champion in that category to me is "Belly."
What do you mean by artful?
Yet another award-seeking case of: "White people, you like me! You really, really like me!"
"Yet another" yet it's the first of it's kind to garner awards. And I find it hard to believe that the creators sought awards or white applause when they set pen to paper to write a deeply personal story based on their own lives.
