A blog with mostly sketches, WIPs, silly things, and what have you's created and drawn by RaveyRai, me--hence the url's name. I'm an Illustrator, Cartoonist, Animator, Director--well all around Content Creator. I got a BFA in Animation from SCAD, Solange and Tracee Ellis Ross know my art (of them), and you can check out more of my work and store (with commissions) via my website: http://raveyrai.com/
“The LEGO Movie was my favorite movie of 2014, but it strikes me that the main character was male, because I feel like in our current culture, he HAD to be. The whole point of Emmett is that he’s the most boring average person in the world. It’s impossible to imagine a female character playing that role, because according to our pop culture, if she’s female she’s already SOMEthing, because she’s not male. The baseline is male. The average person is male. You can see this all over but it’s weirdly prevalent in children’s entertainment. Why are almost all of the muppets dudes, except for Miss Piggy, who’s a parody of femininity? Why do all of the Despicable Me minions, genderless blobs, have boy names? I love the story (which I read on Wikipedia) that when the director of The Brave Little Toaster cast a woman to play the toaster, one of the guys on the crew was so mad he stormed out of the room. Because he thought the toaster was a man. A TOASTER. The character is a toaster. I try to think about that when writing new characters— is there anything inherently gendered about what this character is doing? Or is it a toaster?”
— Bojack Horseman creator Raphael Bob-Waksberg commenting on how weird gendered defaults in entertainment are, and why we should think twice about them. Excerpted from this longer original post.
(via 360degreesasthecrowflies)
you have permission to pick that 2 year old "abandoned" project back up. it's not mad at you for setting it aside. and maybe time and distance have helped ease or erase the things that made you put it down in the first place.
That video of Alex Hirsch reading S&P notes for Gravity Falls conveys a few things to me:
1) the U.S. entertainment industry (especially animation) is run by older conservative types who make up offensive terms and get really mad about them.
2) the people who run Disney would be the first to fall in line with a fascist regime.
3) most of the media we consume is tailor-made and watered-down to appeal to the tastes of older, deeply religious conservative audiences.
4) conservatism, not the left, is and always has been the biggest voice of censorship in American culture.
J. Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5, was before that a producer and writer for a number of cartoons in the late ‘80s/early ‘90s (The Real Ghostbusters and the original She-Ra, most notably). After a few years of dealing with the censors and their obsession with finding Satanism (or at least looking for Satanism to further political agendas) he wrote an article about the whole corrupt and bullshit system.
And published it in Penthouse, to force those same censors to buy a skin mag. The editor there asked, why Penthouse?
That one is from his autobiography, Becoming Superman. See also:
(As he goes on to say, he’s never worked in animation again–he’s effectively been blacklisted by the cartoon industry.)
Every time something like this comes up, I remember two stories about making media. The first is about movies, and comes from Quentin “Feet Man” Tarantino.
When he was making Pulp Fiction, he was worried that the MPAA would object to the high level of violence in the film, so he shot a bunch of extra-gory stuff that he didn’t actually want in the film, and added it in before submitting it to the MPAA. Predictibly, they asked him to cut most of it (without even commenting on some of the things that had him worried, like the bits of Marvin’s skull that lodge in Samuel L. Jackson’s hairpiece). The resultant cuts were actually more permissive than he’d expected, so he cut a little more and submitted it, and it got passed with an R.
The second story is about that artist on Morrowind whose name escapes me (I’m not a big ES fan tbh) who figured out that if he made two creature designs, one weird and what he wanted, and one even weirder, he could get Todd Howard to agree to just about anything by showing him the whopper first, then going back and “working” for another few hours on a second, “toned-down” version, and it worked every time.
The reason I bring these up is that the thing that drives censors isn’t some extant physical rubrick of what is and isn’t acceptable, it’s the idea that they can have absolute power over someone else’s creative work. It’s about the social dominance of the interaction.
There is nothing so innocent, so clean, that a censor will not find some fault with it. Because they must find something wrong with it to justify their existence, and because it makes them feel powerful.
As a Black fem fan of horror but it gotta ~make the brain tickle~, I largely enjoyed the Backrooms movie.
But I definitely had to suspend my disbelief a bit with Clark's character as INTERESTING as he was, because (spoilers below):
1. I'm sure there probably ARE Black people that see white therapists out there... But err...? Considering society's inherent tendency to be anti-black in insidious and conspicuous ways, all the way down to how others treat us through unchecked bias—how we even have to police ourselves and how we engage with others—why WOULD Clark go see a white woman? Which leads to my next questions—
2. Where ARE we? (California) What time period are we in? (It's the 90s)... Alright. Even if Cali is known to be more progressive compared to other states—they ain't with them Police though—still much of the same. And, it's still the US. With this movie taking place in the 90s, I'm assuming after 1992... What of Rodney King? The LA "riots"? Police brutality? You telling me Clark's anger is just that unchecked or not self-policed even when engaging with white women (his therapist, wife, and hell—even the still-life)????
3. And not just them. He's the only main Black male character, and person, on the cast. He's got a young Asian woman co-worker and white man who I assume helps out every once in a while with camera things. Clark then gets them in the Backrooms and... doesn't show him thinking or hesitating (that we, the audience could assume/interpret as), "... Wait. If something were to happen to them... What does that mean for me if I make it out? 🤔" Even IF he's obsessed with proving how right he was about the existence of the Backrooms to, again, his white woman therapist—even IF he's spiraling—we (for the most part) are ALWAYS thinking about how our Blackness might influence/impact a situation. In other words, "Because we live in a racist society, will this look AND go bad for me?"
I've been a fan of Kane Pixels works on YouTube so I can only assume that this was just not thought out that deeply (which tends to happen when it comes to anything race wise beyond him). But, again, I had to suspend my disbelief to continue enjoying the show, because besides what I brought up, I did enjoy it! A LOT.
I was scared! I was disturbed! I was thoughtful! I loved the distorted memory angle. I loved the allusions to AI. I loved that the monster is YOU. I loved the use of sound and set design. I thought having Clark be an architect was clever. Of COURSE he would find the Backrooms fascinating from that point of view. I loved how the therapist even has her own trauma she's parsing and looping through.
I loved picking apart every detail and "puzzle piece" I can get my hand on. That movie kept asking me throughout, "Are you paying attention? Do you remember THIS detail from another scene?" It was fun!
So, yes. Of course I would notice the lone Black character and his handling.
And, again, I thought his character was interesting and largely believable (if we ignored the race relations and implications). I think Chiwetel Ejiofor played Clark fantastically. And I can only assume and hope he likely enjoyed playing him too. Understand me when I say I wasn't expecting him to be a "good guy". Nor am I asking for that. Is the character believable, interesting, and complex is what I largely look for. For the most part, yes, he was, but because he is the only Black man and person in the film, the optics of his anger and violence putting these non-Black people in harm's way and also being the cause of their harm (and demise) was... Hm.
In honor of an old "Tumblr saying", nothing is created in a vacuum.
For a movie that subverted expectations with character motivations, desires, actions, and even the horror monster... And the attention to detail was immaculate—I wished that level of care and subversion would have also applied to the racial implications and biases presented when having a Black main character in the film.
Because it was there with the women. I could see the film saying by showing the harm and disregard of women in the way the men and the broader patriarchal system at large engaged with or dismissed them. Again, whether personally, casually, and systemically. It wasn't blatant, but I peeped, and I appreciated it.
I wish I could extend that to the racial components but alas. That wasn't thought about and it showed.
So, what could have been done to avoid that misstep or icky feeling for Black audience members like myself?
Have Clark NOT be the only Black character in the film. Black women do exist. How interesting (and more believable) would it have been if the "therapist character", Mary, was a Black woman? Man... How lucky is the timeline that DID go that route?
Guess imma have to watch Is God Is to make up for it 😌
I am quite pleased that this is receiving poignant and thoughtful responses! Here are a couple of my favorites:
@separocean-anxiety's tags mentioned how there's essentially no phenomenon of "gender-blind" casting. Like... a fem Clark?! Oh my GOD! That would have been FASCINATING to watch! Now I feel like we REALLY missed out on something interesting. Thank you for this!
@cameoamalthea pointed out the ablism in the Backrooms film on my other post where I go even further on the "Black Brute" stereotype and why it's very understandable and valid that some people viewed the movie as racist because of it. I hadn't considered ablism and agree that's a very fair critique, especially considering the movie was playing with the idea of how the Backrooms builds things based on our faulty memory, and they had a psychology consultant at their disposal.
Piggybacking off the previous response, I also really appreciated @rocambolesystem's empathetic tags that Clark was having a psychotic break and that another not-so-great optic was that the movie depicted a Black man going through psychosis as a threat to a white woman who is a therapist. YOOOO! And considering how psychosis works and how terribly mentally ill Black folks are treated and killed in real life—that was also pretty icky. He was depicted as being in control and making a conscious choice, but... he was in psychosis. Was he fully in control and aware in a movie exploring how vulnerable and fragile the human mind is? Especially when pitted against a whole environment like the Backrooms, whose very existence is supernaturally and powerfully mind-bending to begin with?
REALLY loved their tags because, you know what? That's a fantastic point! I wish the script had been more considerate of all the complex power imbalances at play with race, gender, and how even those working in the mental health field (MARY) can also fall short despite being in a position of power and authority. It would have been fascinating had they found a way to subvert expectations even further and had her become the antagonist (more clearly if that actually was their goal)! Yes, she's a woman and disenfranchised due to her gender... but not only is she a mental health professional who would be the most equipped to realize Clark was not in his right mind at that moment—she still has power over him both as a mental health expert and as a white person. She would have even more had she been a man, but the power dynamic—though tricky—is still apparent. And complex. And that's ok to explore and show. He has already become a harm to others and himself—but she still has the upper hand as the mental health expert and who has not been subjected to the Backrooms as long as he has.
And what did she make the conscious choice to do with that expertise? She told him (paraphrasing), "Then don't change (for the better)."
Framing her as the antagonist in that regard would have made her even more uniquely interesting because... we were made to draw obvious parallels between her and Clark's wife. Still, we were robbed of seeing her possibly draw parallels between Clark and her own mother. She was vulnerable and at her mentally ill mother's mercy as a child, but things are different as an adult dealing with a patient going through a mental health crisis themselves while you have the knowledge to either help guide them to choose differently or better, or make matters worse. She was able to get him to start untying her, so... she knew how to do a little Jedi mind tinkering.
Especially considering we can understand that all bets are off because he essentially kidnapped her and put her in harm's way. She's trying to survive something terrifying and surreal, but thanks to the script's weakness/limitations in not considering as many optics as they could (or should), we're largely encouraged to take only her side and root for her survival, even though he's in the middle of having a psychotic break and does not have the resources she has to combat that. It became easier to stop viewing him as a victim when he still is one to the Backrooms, albeit he may be an unlikable one who has caused harm.
We could have explored the complexity of power dynamics and authority figures from so many angles and intersections. Race relations, gender relations, unregulated private companies, authority figures in mental health who we are told to trust, yet in the same vein could also institutionalize us. Nature vs nurture and how the Backrooms fit into that. Restorative justice—SO MUCH!
But yes! That tag response and the others I've mentioned really got me thinking further, and I appreciate that! Thank y'all again for the thought exercise! I hope I married those three points cohesively.
Even though I mentioned that it would have helped had Clark not been the only Black person in the film, it would still have some level of “Hm” to it because we are still depicting a marginalized group with intersections at play on the screen, and your story—SORRY—has to reflect that in some way.
When watching a film or engaging with any creative media, we're not expecting answers to the world's most harrowing issues, but we are looking for something genuine and believable. I’ve already talked about in my other post how race actually adds another compelling and interesting layer to a story and if you avoid that it can hurt your story, so I won’t rehash here but I will repeat that now that I’ve sat with it some more I, personally, would rather we be left out of a story if one isn’t truly interested in writing nuanced and believable Black characters with care, let alone mentally vulnerable, antagonistic, and complex ones.
I think you may have the best take on this discussion around race in the backrooms yet. I wasn’t fully certain what my stance was, since I saw people on one side being all “omg shut up nothing is political about it NOBODY in a million years is going to ever interpret this film this way!” And disregarding the people out there who actually would for the sake of justifying their own biases (confirmation bias. It’s more common than we think according to my psychology research. I’ll come back to that later).
Then on the other end we have people saying “This film is so trash Kayne must be super racist why is nobody else seeing Clark as being this written way BECAUSE of his race like I do, this film hates black people! His character is aggressive with a large ego and he happens to be black which makes this movie evil!”
It’s a breath of fresh air to see a structured argument that goes more into detail as to how these potential issues of race could end up arising unintentionally in fan-spaces and how they could have been avoided, without ignoring that the film was always intended to be about psychological horror which it does well. Apparently the script was written in 2023 and casted in 2025, so I highly doubt they wrote this with the races of actors in mind.
You made a really good point about how we already find ways to consider how gender could be thematically significant without it being a sole focus of the film, and how there isn't really anything stopping race from joining the discussion, which hadn’t even occurred to me! But you’re right, people could easily pick into that. Like I said, confirmation bias is when people almost exclusively focus on information that reinforces already existing opinions. So there are probably going to be viewers who are already racist who watch the movie and completely look past the intended themes of memory and trauma and the nature of humans to become obsessed with what they don’t truly understand if it allows escapism, just to be all “See! Black man bad! I’m right to be bigoted!”
Plus, you made another good point in how depending on the time period the film is set in, Clark’s behaviour may be impacted by his race and being conscious of how he is perceived by a white therapist. Again, I study psychology, and there’s a massive emphasis on racial bias within psychology, especially in the diagnosis of disorders and how mental health is treated due to cultural differences that may arise from race even in households that aren’t immigrants. Which is even more reason that as a black man, Clark may have likely been more conscious about who he went to regarding his mental health like you said.
As much as the idea of casting actors based on their race when the film doesn’t consciously have that as a topic feels a bit off to me, I think you’re right that they could’ve avoided unintentionally portraying black people this way by having other black characters who didn’t spiral into aggression and cruel behaviour. This seems like an unfortunate case where the writers and director hadn’t considered the possible implications of having one black actor be the (turned) antagonist of the film.
Ideally that’s how it should be, casting people for who best understand a character when race isn't intended to be important to the media and audiences don’t think twice about a character who is personality and story first and racial/sexual/gender identity second, but we are still at a point in time where it does still matter, and people love to knit pick for justification of their views of other people.
Also, sorry for the yap session! I wanted to contribute to the conversation and bring up a few points in real life applied human psychology that your discussion reminded me of, how they could’ve been used to look at character behaviours in film and how we may see this confirmation bias appear in audiences when the film marinates for a bit or goes deeper into release. But I was scared of just typing a comment or reblogging since people on both sides of this debate seem really intense and eager to dogpile and behave aggressively towards others who disagree with them even slightly. Some notes under other posts have been ROUGH 😅
I appreciate the yapping, as a yapper myself. And thank you for this message.
I want to start off by saying I won't disparage anyone (and I'm not accusing you of doing this, anon) for not liking the film for a couple of the reasons I listed in that post (or more I missed or didn't add), considering the history the US has of depicting marginalized communities as inherently "bad" and "up to no good". Particularly the Black community. We should hold those to task who have the opportunity to shape or uphold the popular zeitgeist in culture. It can lead to or further enforce stereotypes (and confirmation biases, as you've pointed out) that can incite and inspire actions that cause harm. Because they have historically and presently.
More thoughts under the read more because we love reading and diving deeper because it is that deep.
In Clark's case, the "Black Brute" stereotype and caricature have always been a harmful image used in popular US media for decades. Centuries even. It was used as a justification to hunt, torment, and murder Black people, particularly men. It was also used as justification to keep Black people enslaved. Of course, Black Audiences will be hypersensitive to anything that may flirt with that depiction, and unfortunately, the Backrooms movie didn't do its due diligence to avoid it.
It may seem "extreme" for some Black folk to wonder if those who produced the film are racist, but... Clark and the Still-Life that represents him do fit the very harmful and racist "Black Brute" caricature. That's the icky feeling.
Clark's Still-life was a caricature of him. But it was real for the characters in the story. And it eventually chased after Mary, the lone white main female character in the story, another key feature or racist American White fears of the "Black Brute".
I think what helped in making sure Clark wasn't the only protag turned antagonist that harmed his non-Black counterparts was Async's involvement and violence through inaction, and "watching" everything unfold to learn more about the Backrooms. They didn't even really "save" Mary there. We don't even know what happens to her now that they have her. It was even implied that they might not let her go either... and this coming from the white male scientist who saw Clark not just once but twice with his furniture commercial. Async being present showed a systemic violence that's greater than Clark's. It's more insidious but harmful all the same.
That and another reason that helped me to suspend my disbelief and critical race lens is for me to view the casting as a "color-blind" one though I have my gripes with that because it conveniently still reads as "white", which I agree with you about (the casting after the script); it seemed like the script was done first, then casting, but I bet Clark did have a default "race" in mind for him... because it was written as such. Chiwetel Ejiofor, again, played Clark fantastically and brought something to the character that casting liked. I recognized it in his performance.
That said, had Clark been a white man, I could definitely dig into the statement of unchecked violence that society allows (white) men when they're angry at the world and... don't want to change. And want to be told it's not their fault. And with Bobby also being white, that commentary or interpretation would be an easier pill to swallow because we get to see another depiction of a white man in this story that was different from Clark. There's even a part of me that wishes that reality happened because we could easily point to the Patriarchy of it all. How it not only harms non-men, but it also ends up consuming the men that feel they still must pledge their allegiance to it in casual or overt ways. Clark's character, had he been white, would still be very believable.
It also helped that my partner pointed out that he works with plenty of men who have Clark's mentality and thought processes—no matter the race. And... stories like that also need to be told. I just think it would be handled with more care and nuance from their respective cultures.
Now, this might be prejudiced of me to admit, but, oh well~ To be completely honest, I am not expecting white creatives to do Black characters nuanced and complex justice when they have us in their stories. I've been alive for 33+ years, and with the history of Black characters in white writers' hands—much has been desired. That's not me giving a pass at the clear lack of care either. I just do not have the confidence that white people can do it because they are not people of color; you don't know what you don't know.
But that doesn't mean white creatives can't ever have non-white characters in their stories. That's ridiculous. You live in a diverse world; of course, reflect that, but do your research. Why? Because as a white person, it is not required of you to care or be mindful of those racial and cultural components of a non-white character. And it tends to show because non-white characters are typically written... like they are white. White is typically seen as the "correct" "default," so why would you go a little further than "necessary" by being mindful of race relations? That is considered "extra" or "unnecessary" bonus work. There's also a fear that it might "distract" from the story (or it might be done wrong—but if adequate research was done and other non-white creative writers were present to assist, that fear wouldn't be as major a concern).
And that's frustrating as a Black person. Our race is not extra or unnecessary to any story. It adds to it. It can up the stakes. It can add even more tension or danger to a situation because being Black in an anti-Black environment is an extra layer of terror (from a horror movie point of view)! It can add more complexity to a character's motivations, fears, goals, etc.
It's why I enjoy Jordan Peele's horror work so much. Blackness is integral to the story.
So—sidebar—I'm in Atlanta. In my theatre, we all groaned at Clark doing something that definitely pricked at our disbelief: he called out to the danger at one point in the classic horror protag's, "Hello? Who's there?"
But we don't do that! That's like, one of THEE Black jokes when it comes to horror: there wouldn't be a horror movie because we don't call out or adventure into the unknown, thus alerting the danger, "Here we are!" We're not looking for what's going on. We're not looking for or trying to understand a strange occurrence. We're trying to get out of known and unknown danger.
We're trying to stay out of trouble. We always are because we're expected to cause trouble, and we're hyper-aware of the eyes on us at any given moment.
In Jordan Peele's films, because he knows us, he makes sure we can't get out... that easily, at least. But he makes a point to show how our first action tends to be "Get outta there!" That's terrifying to us, but so good and further bases the world in reality for the audience.
But in the Backrooms movie, Clark went back. He was chased out, yet he still decided to go back. I had to suspend my disbelief there because he's recently divorced, this is happening in his store, and... again. He's an architect. Fine. But I still knew, "Ah, he's not a Black man in this story. He's a 'raceless' man."
But do you see how that can limit your story when, again, he is clearly a Black man visually?
I say all of this to say, if you do have a non-white character in your story, the least you could do is make sure you're not adding to already preconceived notions that further the subjugation of a marginalized group. And what's damning in this case, there was a psychology consultant in the credits of this film! So...?????????
But, as you stated, anon, racial bias is prevalent even in psychology. There was a time when we were diagnosed as wanting to escape slavery.
Anyway, we have to have these uncomfortable and honest conversations. Especially in times like this, where our rights are being stripped away as we speak. If there are Black folks who absolutely hated the Backrooms movie because of the careless handling (at best) of the lone Black male character in the film, because of very real, and well-documented caricatures like the "Black Brute" and thus further adding to that horrid belief—that's fine. That's fair. Those feelings are valid.
The filmmaker in question—who is known for diving super deep in research for environments, technology, and making sure his Backrooms world is very believable and nuanced—he has to eat the critiques for dropping the ball when it comes to his Black lead character.
I can believe it’s race blind casting, and that they cast the actor based on talent because he’s great. But you can’t make a character black without thinking about how race changes the story you’re telling.
His ex-wife is white and it’s implied he was abusive by the way her ‘still life’ flees screaming when his returns. Then we have him be a threat to a white woman both as himself and through the ‘still life’.
Maybe they could have cast more black characters or consulted with black creators.
I also didn’t like the whole trope of mentally ill people are dangerous. He goes from man with anger issues who isn’t taking responsibility for his life and relationships issues to having a woman’s head in the fridge and eating flesh (from the still life but still).
Sure it’s a horror film and evil place drives you mad, trope, but…I feel like it was doing interesting things with mental illness as a theme with the Backrooms mirroring trauma that’s pushed down and the whole mentally ill man as literal monster is just tired and problematic.
That is a very fair critique, especially considering they had a psychology consultant on the team, I guess, to make sure the therapy sessions were realistic and appropriate. How long or involved the the consultant was is uncertain.
More care could have been done to ensure that we didn't see the mentally ill person(s) (I'm thinking of Mary's mother also) aren't seen as "monsters". I took the violent "still lifes" as a physical manifestation the backrooms produced (or misrembered or perverted) from the "Original's" struggles with obsession and stagnation, especially harmful ones.
I saw the environment, the backrooms, as the true "villain".
But I can respect and understand that the common take away isn't empathy or sympathy when someone going through a mentally ill episode causes harm—the common take is to villainize the person. Which only further others those that have that experience.
I think you may have the best take on this discussion around race in the backrooms yet. I wasn’t fully certain what my stance was, since I saw people on one side being all “omg shut up nothing is political about it NOBODY in a million years is going to ever interpret this film this way!” And disregarding the people out there who actually would for the sake of justifying their own biases (confirmation bias. It’s more common than we think according to my psychology research. I’ll come back to that later).
Then on the other end we have people saying “This film is so trash Kayne must be super racist why is nobody else seeing Clark as being this written way BECAUSE of his race like I do, this film hates black people! His character is aggressive with a large ego and he happens to be black which makes this movie evil!”
It’s a breath of fresh air to see a structured argument that goes more into detail as to how these potential issues of race could end up arising unintentionally in fan-spaces and how they could have been avoided, without ignoring that the film was always intended to be about psychological horror which it does well. Apparently the script was written in 2023 and casted in 2025, so I highly doubt they wrote this with the races of actors in mind.
You made a really good point about how we already find ways to consider how gender could be thematically significant without it being a sole focus of the film, and how there isn't really anything stopping race from joining the discussion, which hadn’t even occurred to me! But you’re right, people could easily pick into that. Like I said, confirmation bias is when people almost exclusively focus on information that reinforces already existing opinions. So there are probably going to be viewers who are already racist who watch the movie and completely look past the intended themes of memory and trauma and the nature of humans to become obsessed with what they don’t truly understand if it allows escapism, just to be all “See! Black man bad! I’m right to be bigoted!”
Plus, you made another good point in how depending on the time period the film is set in, Clark’s behaviour may be impacted by his race and being conscious of how he is perceived by a white therapist. Again, I study psychology, and there’s a massive emphasis on racial bias within psychology, especially in the diagnosis of disorders and how mental health is treated due to cultural differences that may arise from race even in households that aren’t immigrants. Which is even more reason that as a black man, Clark may have likely been more conscious about who he went to regarding his mental health like you said.
As much as the idea of casting actors based on their race when the film doesn’t consciously have that as a topic feels a bit off to me, I think you’re right that they could’ve avoided unintentionally portraying black people this way by having other black characters who didn’t spiral into aggression and cruel behaviour. This seems like an unfortunate case where the writers and director hadn’t considered the possible implications of having one black actor be the (turned) antagonist of the film.
Ideally that’s how it should be, casting people for who best understand a character when race isn't intended to be important to the media and audiences don’t think twice about a character who is personality and story first and racial/sexual/gender identity second, but we are still at a point in time where it does still matter, and people love to knit pick for justification of their views of other people.
Also, sorry for the yap session! I wanted to contribute to the conversation and bring up a few points in real life applied human psychology that your discussion reminded me of, how they could’ve been used to look at character behaviours in film and how we may see this confirmation bias appear in audiences when the film marinates for a bit or goes deeper into release. But I was scared of just typing a comment or reblogging since people on both sides of this debate seem really intense and eager to dogpile and behave aggressively towards others who disagree with them even slightly. Some notes under other posts have been ROUGH 😅
I appreciate the yapping, as a yapper myself. And thank you for this message.
I want to start off by saying I won't disparage anyone (and I'm not accusing you of doing this, anon) for not liking the film for a couple of the reasons I listed in that post (or more I missed or didn't add), considering the history the US has of depicting marginalized communities as inherently "bad" and "up to no good". Particularly the Black community. We should hold those to task who have the opportunity to shape or uphold the popular zeitgeist in culture. It can lead to or further enforce stereotypes (and confirmation biases, as you've pointed out) that can incite and inspire actions that cause harm. Because they have historically and presently.
More thoughts under the read more because we love reading and diving deeper because it is that deep.
In Clark's case, the "Black Brute" stereotype and caricature have always been a harmful image used in popular US media for decades. Centuries A lil' over a century even. It was used as a justification to hunt, torment, and murder Black people, particularly men. It was also used as justification to keep Black people enslaved (edited addition: in that we can't be trusted as free folk because we'll be up to no good without enslavement). Of course, Black Audiences will be hypersensitive to anything that may flirt with that depiction, and unfortunately, the Backrooms movie didn't do its due diligence to avoid it.
It may seem "extreme" for some Black folk to wonder if those who produced the film are racist, but... Clark and the Still-Life that represents him do fit the very harmful and racist "Black Brute" caricature. That's the icky feeling.
Clark's Still-life was a caricature of him. But it was real for the characters in the story. And it eventually chased after Mary, the lone white main female character in the story, another key feature or racist American White fears of the "Black Brute".
I think what helped in making sure Clark wasn't the only protag turned antagonist that harmed his non-Black counterparts was Async's involvement and violence through inaction, and "watching" everything unfold to learn more about the Backrooms. They didn't even really "save" Mary there. We don't even know what happens to her now that they have her. It was even implied that they might not let her go either... and this coming from the white male scientist who saw Clark not just once but twice with his furniture commercial. Async being present showed a systemic violence that's greater than Clark's. It's more insidious but harmful all the same.
That and another reason that helped me to suspend my disbelief and critical race lens is for me to view the casting as a "color-blind" one though I have my gripes with that because it conveniently still reads as "white", which I agree with you about (the casting after the script); it seemed like the script was done first, then casting, but I bet Clark did have a default "race" in mind for him... because it was written as such. Chiwetel Ejiofor, again, played Clark fantastically and brought something to the character that casting liked. I recognized it in his performance.
That said, had Clark been a white man, I could definitely dig into the statement of unchecked violence that society allows (white) men when they're angry at the world and... don't want to change. And want to be told it's not their fault. And with Bobby also being white, that commentary or interpretation would be an easier pill to swallow because we get to see another depiction of a white man in this story that was different from Clark. There's even a part of me that wishes that reality happened because we could easily point to the Patriarchy of it all. How it not only harms non-men, but it also ends up consuming the men that feel they still must pledge their allegiance to it in casual or overt ways. Clark's character, had he been white, would still be very believable.
It also helped that my partner pointed out that he works with plenty of men who have Clark's mentality and thought processes—no matter the race. And... stories like that also need to be told. I just think it would be handled with more care and nuance from their respective cultures.
Now, this might be prejudiced of me to admit, but, oh well~ To be completely honest, I am not expecting white creatives to do Black characters nuanced and complex justice when they have us in their stories. I've been alive for 33+ years, and with the history of Black characters in white writers' hands—much has been desired. That's not me giving a pass at the clear lack of care either. I just do not have the confidence that white people can do it because they are not people of color; you don't know what you don't know.
But that doesn't mean white creatives can't ever have non-white characters in their stories. That's ridiculous. You live in a diverse world; of course, reflect that, but do your research. Why? Because as a white person, it is not required of you to care or be mindful of those racial and cultural components of a non-white character. And it tends to show because non-white characters are typically written... like they are white. White is typically seen as the "correct" "default," so why would you go a little further than "necessary" by being mindful of race relations? That is considered "extra" or "unnecessary" bonus work. There's also a fear that it might "distract" from the story (or it might be done wrong—but if adequate research was done and other non-white creative writers were present to assist, that fear wouldn't be as major a concern).
And that's frustrating as a Black person. Our race is not extra or unnecessary to any story. It adds to it. It can up the stakes. It can add even more tension or danger to a situation because being Black in an anti-Black environment is an extra layer of terror (from a horror movie point of view)! It can add more complexity to a character's motivations, fears, goals, etc.
It's why I enjoy Jordan Peele's horror work so much. Blackness is integral to the story.
So—sidebar—I'm in Atlanta. In my theatre, we all groaned at Clark doing something that definitely pricked at our disbelief: he called out to the danger at one point in the classic horror protag's, "Hello? Who's there?"
But we don't do that! That's like, one of THEE Black jokes when it comes to horror: there wouldn't be a horror movie because we don't call out or adventure into the unknown, thus alerting the danger, "Here we are!" We're not looking for what's going on. We're not looking for or trying to understand a strange occurrence. We're trying to get out of known and unknown danger.
We're trying to stay out of trouble. We always are because we're expected to cause trouble, and we're hyper-aware of the eyes on us at any given moment.
In Jordan Peele's films, because he knows us, he makes sure we can't get out... that easily, at least. But he makes a point to show how our first action tends to be "Get outta there!" That's terrifying to us, but so good and further bases the world in reality for the audience.
But in the Backrooms movie, Clark went back. He was chased out, yet he still decided to go back. I had to suspend my disbelief there because he's recently divorced, this is happening in his store, and... again. He's an architect. Fine. But I still knew, "Ah, he's not a Black man in this story. He's a 'raceless' man."
But do you see how that can limit your story when, again, he is clearly a Black man visually?
I say all of this to say, if you do have a non-white character in your story, the least you could do is make sure you're not adding to already preconceived notions that further the subjugation of a marginalized group. And what's damning in this case, there was a psychology consultant in the credits of this film! So...?????????
But, as you stated, anon, racial bias is prevalent even in psychology. There was a time when we were diagnosed as wanting to escape slavery.
Anyway, we have to have these uncomfortable and honest conversations. Especially in times like this, where our rights are being stripped away as we speak. If there are Black folks who absolutely hated the Backrooms movie because of the careless handling (at best) of the lone Black male character in the film, because of very real, and well-documented caricatures like the "Black Brute" and thus further adding to that horrid belief—that's fine. That's fair. Those feelings are valid.
The filmmaker in question—who is known for diving super deep in research for environments, technology, and making sure his Backrooms world is very believable and nuanced—he has to eat the critiques for dropping the ball when it comes to his Black lead character.
As a Black fem fan of horror but it gotta ~make the brain tickle~, I largely enjoyed the Backrooms movie.
But I definitely had to suspend my disbelief a bit with Clark's character as INTERESTING as he was, because (spoilers below):
1. I'm sure there probably ARE Black people that see white therapists out there... But err...? Considering society's inherent tendency to be anti-black in insidious and conspicuous ways, all the way down to how others treat us through unchecked bias—how we even have to police ourselves and how we engage with others—why WOULD Clark go see a white woman? Which leads to my next questions—
2. Where ARE we? (California) What time period are we in? (It's the 90s)... Alright. Even if Cali is known to be more progressive compared to other states—they ain't with them Police though—still much of the same. And, it's still the US. With this movie taking place in the 90s, I'm assuming after 1992... What of Rodney King? The LA "riots"? Police brutality? You telling me Clark's anger is just that unchecked or not self-policed even when engaging with white women (his therapist, wife, and hell—even the still-life)????
3. And not just them. He's the only main Black male character, and person, on the cast. He's got a young Asian woman co-worker and white man who I assume helps out every once in a while with camera things. Clark then gets them in the Backrooms and... doesn't show him thinking or hesitating (that we, the audience could assume/interpret as), "... Wait. If something were to happen to them... What does that mean for me if I make it out? 🤔" Even IF he's obsessed with proving how right he was about the existence of the Backrooms to, again, his white woman therapist—even IF he's spiraling—we (for the most part) are ALWAYS thinking about how our Blackness might influence/impact a situation. In other words, "Because we live in a racist society, will this look AND go bad for me?"
I've been a fan of Kane Pixels works on YouTube so I can only assume that this was just not thought out that deeply (which tends to happen when it comes to anything race wise beyond him). But, again, I had to suspend my disbelief to continue enjoying the show, because besides what I brought up, I did enjoy it! A LOT.
I was scared! I was disturbed! I was thoughtful! I loved the distorted memory angle. I loved the allusions to AI. I loved that the monster is YOU. I loved the use of sound and set design. I thought having Clark be an architect was clever. Of COURSE he would find the Backrooms fascinating from that point of view. I loved how the therapist even has her own trauma she's parsing and looping through.
I loved picking apart every detail and "puzzle piece" I can get my hand on. That movie kept asking me throughout, "Are you paying attention? Do you remember THIS detail from another scene?" It was fun!
So, yes. Of course I would notice the lone Black character and his handling.
And, again, I thought his character was interesting and largely believable (if we ignored the race relations and implications). I think Chiwetel Ejiofor played Clark fantastically. And I can only assume and hope he likely enjoyed playing him too. Understand me when I say I wasn't expecting him to be a "good guy". Nor am I asking for that. Is the character believable, interesting, and complex is what I largely look for. For the most part, yes, he was, but because he is the only Black man and person in the film, the optics of his anger and violence putting these non-Black people in harm's way and also being the cause of their harm (and demise) was... Hm.
In honor of an old "Tumblr saying", nothing is created in a vacuum.
For a movie that subverted expectations with character motivations, desires, actions, and even the horror monster... And the attention to detail was immaculate—I wished that level of care and subversion would have also applied to the racial implications and biases presented when having a Black main character in the film.
Because it was there with the women. I could see the film saying by showing the harm and disregard of women in the way the men and the broader patriarchal system at large engaged with or dismissed them. Again, whether personally, casually, and systemically. It wasn't blatant, but I peeped, and I appreciated it.
I wish I could extend that to the racial components but alas. That wasn't thought about and it showed.
So, what could have been done to avoid that misstep or icky feeling for Black audience members like myself?
Have Clark NOT be the only Black character in the film. Black women do exist. How interesting (and more believable) would it have been if the "therapist character", Mary, was a Black woman? Man... How lucky is the timeline that DID go that route?
Guess imma have to watch Is God Is to make up for it 😌
I always say that the thing which sets Sargent apart as a portrait artist is that he draws/paints literally every subject - no matter their gender, social position, life vs representational drawing etc - like he is right that minute realising he's desperately in love with them. And it rules every single time.
Multi billion dollar corporations: We make crap AI ads because we rather hang ourselves than pay an extra cent for a quality work.
Midsize art supply manufacturer: We commissioned a watercolor artist to make an illustration for every color of our watercolor palette and make it into an art book with swatches.
(Ekaterina Goland for "Old master" watercolors by Gamma)
No to H.R. 7661 📢 | via EveryLibrary.org: "This bill places the federal government in the position of dictating what young people are permitted to read by threatening to withhold funding if certain viewpoints or topics appear in school collections. Using financial leverage to pressure schools to remove books is not educational policy. It is a federal intrusion into local decision-making and a direct challenge to the freedom to read."
Find your representative with the House.gov member finder tool and urge them to vote NO on H.R. 7661 📚️
