Michael B. Jordan, Acting and Black Masculinity in Leading Men.
/
I think it's vital, especially in this era and this time, we discuss acting potential, capabilities and craftsmanship with the kind of nuance it deserves. The declining nature of the stranglehold various schools of acting had on up and coming actors has led to a more relaxed interpretation of good work that I think allows for a more ingratiating idea of what entails a good actor. This in turn has led to some very good revisitations of careers that were unfairly maligned for years due to the intended and unintended effects of the various bourgeoisie schools of thought that had up this point dominated the field. As usual when one style or paradigm shifts to give way to another balance is rarely ever achieved and there tends to be a throwing out of the proverbial baby with the bath water. In this case that “baby” is method and craft, as the erosion of the mystique around actors has led to some dubious claims about what acting is, the conflation of various descriptors, ( Movie Star, Character actor, Leading man woman) and ill-suited comparisons. Today actor Michael B Jordan has become a sort of focal point of the best and worst of what has come forth out of this interesting vortex. In a NYT article from earlier this week film critic Aisha Harris posits that Michael B Jordan is “More than a Movie Star”. It’s a great article that I highly recommend reading before this to gain some context, Harris properly identifies Jordan’s potential, some of his strengths, and his skill-set, but whereas Harris seeks to counter the idea that Michael B. Jordan can’t act (an absurd conceit) or that he is merely a movie star. Here I’m more interested in identifying what he may lack that lies at the source of what causes people to say such a thing, and explain why I disagree with the notion that Jordan, based purely on merits of acting - is anywhere in the vicinity of Denzel, Leo (whom Harris lists him as in the realm of) , but closer to Tom Cruise and most certainly Will Smith (Also listed) and how he can improve.
Michael B. Jordan has always been an actor to me, a natural actor, a born actor. I think anyone saying Jordan can't act is giving in to a lazy (usually uninformed) interpretation of Michael’s weak points, or of the places where he struggles. I also think it's a bit - not as lazy as the previous statement, but still a bit lazy to claim that he is in the same vein as Denzel Washington or Leonardo DiCaprio. There is a major distinction to be made here that while Washington and DiCaprio are lead actors, they are also lead actors with very strong character actor sensibilities. They know what is expected of them from the audience, of what sells, of what they do well, and to some extent chart their starry-like careers based upon that. However, they are also always willing to surprise, embarrass themselves, and shock. They tend to like doing “films for themselves” a trait character actors are more prone to carrying than leading men. Most importantly, there's an instinct there. To make the kinds of choices steeped in vulnerability as Miss Harris described. What differentiates and separates those two especially (in my opinion even Cruise by quite a large margin) and Will Smith, and Jordan is the level of vulnerability. Vulnerability is not just showing a soft side, although that's the thing that tends to be most associated with vulnerability, (especially as it pertains to men) it's also about being willing to embarrass oneself. Being willing to truly look bad, detestable, repulsive, cruel, and not have it anywhere in the vicinity of cool, because the funny thing is,..that's how you end up with a really cool scene. Leonardo’s sad ugly cry in the basketball diaries, his pitiful moans of despair, and desperation speak to a level of vulnerability we have never seen Michael B. Jordan even attempt do. The goofy, old man dance Denzel Washington performs in the kitchen in “Fences” is an act that reaches a level of embarrassing that I believe it would be Jordan’s instinct to protect himself from. This is not about talent level, and is in no way singular to Jordan. I think as actors, as male actors, and especially as black male actors ( I cannot speak for other male actors of color, but I would assume certain similarities) - it is instinctual to protect our self and our image on the stage and in front of the cameras. This is true to varying levels of all genders, and races, but black male actors I run into always seem to be hyper aware of our representation thus far in Hollywood, and addition to the socialization and conditioning common in all men that leaves us adamant in our insistence on vulnerability as a sign of weakness. This double portion of repression in my mind is partially what leads to black mens obsession with “cool” and ironically what helps keep us shackled to an idea of self that goes beyond the stereotypical norms set by white patriarchal supremacy. This instinct to protect the image goes beyond what the script allows, as a man, as a black man, as well as as an actor, this is about imagination, choices and willingness. These choices this willingness, the emotional intelligence is partially why when you want to find fhe best actors doing both mamy times it’s black women. Ruby Dee, Diahann Carroll, Marlene Clark, Viola, and Angela are just a few examples of the kind of black women who exuded movie star presence and charisma while still presenting a core value for pushing their own boundaries and limitations. You see it in not only their choices of roles, but in performances. Its in Diahann playing a single mother with Children, when black men mightve said the equivalent would've been like playing a stereotype. It’s Viola's “snot" the most genuinely authentic and ego free decisions we’ve seen on screen. Keeping in mind that our choices are usually guided by our willingness to engage in whatever alternatives are present in the choice. In the context of on-screen black male acting, an example can be found in a comparison between the energy and emotion present in both the “King Kong” scene in “Training Day”, and the “Is this your King” scene in “Black Panther” because the conditions and the set-up are similar. They both involve a face off that takes place in front of an audience that includes a rhetorical question rooted in feelings of anger, betrayal and indignation, but pay attention to the difference in expression between the two actors.
What you will notice in MBJ, is an unwillingness to go very far from his body. Whether with his arms or neck, he never strays too far. His movement is restrained, therefore so too is his emotion. As actors we are often taught that if you are having trouble conjuring up an emotion simply engage in a movement that will help you produce said emotion. Many times our mind will follow our body as much as the opposite is true. This has its basis in the Stanislavski Technique, but can be found whether or not you've studied that particular method. My point, in pointing all of this out is to show that Jordan seems to afraid to let go, to explore the fullness of his body and it shows up in more than just this role. Now compare that to Denzel in “Training Day”…
Denzel’s performance is based upon a very similar emotion in a very similar scene, but is much less restricted, much less safe. If it were a drawing it would resemble DaVinci’s “Vitruvian Man” while Jordan’s would be a stick figure. This is not just indicative of age and career length, its indicative of training, and more importantly a willingness to overshoot the mark in order to find the range. After all, Daniel Kaluuya is two years Jordan’s junior and his scenes in both a gym and a bowling alley in “Widows” show off a very similar willingness to do something no one expects, to explore the borders of his range.
Although it's a funny thing, I maintain that having any expression or line you've delivered appear in the form of the increasingly popular gif is a testament that you've given something that really has caught on and become sort of legend in the annuls of the minds of the audience. Most actors have some form of a gif, but very few gifs that reach the level of popularity, frequency of use, or number that Denzel, DiCaprio , or any actor of any gender enjoy. From Denzel’s single tear in “Glory,” to DiCaprio biting his knuckles in lust in “Wolf of Wall Street” these gifs are indicative of an audience’s conscious/unconscious recognition of the power of an interesting choice in acting. Jordan on the other hand has next to no gifs not made up of something he has done off camera, something physical, or an expression of vulnerability. Michael’s now nearly ubiquitous “ is this your king?!” line in Black Panther is an occasion where what Michael B. Jordan does best, what he wants to do best - is met, complimented, and hugged by what the script desired of him. But to paraphrase what Aisha Harris states in her piece, Jordan has a tendency to under throw the script. I want to be clear about my stance on Michael be Jordan; before I go any further. He has immense talent as an actor, the kind most of us dream of. I think he's one of the rawest, most gifted actors we have out. I think the potential he has as actor to quite literally turn on the flames and light the screen up has ben on display multiple times. BUT, in order to move beyond that realm of movie star and into not just Oscar territory (which is quite possible to enter even without pushing such boundaries), but that territory that makes the industry and the audience give you that sort of respect as being a craftsman beyond charisma, magnetism, and hard work - you're going to have to do roles that puts you squarely outside of that. Michael still has plenty of time to do that, and more than enough talent to implement it with interest, but again, I just find it incomplete to not investigate where it is these gripes and proclamations come from. Where they have the hint of truth; in order to find answers to things like the British invasion of American roles because of a general (and I think somewhat fair from my experience) sentiment that our actors don’t really bring it because they don’t have the training.
For Michael B. Jordan to join the ranks of the actors that Miss Harris speaks about in her profile. He's going to have to give a little bit more of himself than he has given thus far. Same goes for other actors in his ilk and future actors. We are going to have the step firmly outside of the realm of what we’re clearly so comfortable doing with no tether to coolness, and the limiting assurance of a prototypical form of black masculinity. Make a decision to be something, to do something that breaks apart and reconstructs the persona we may have worked so hard to build because as of right now it's clear not just in someone like Michael B. Jordan’s choices of roles overall, but in his acting choices from within those choices that he is very concerned about the presentation of Michael. I didn't need an interview in the New York Times with him stating this very sentiment to tell me that. It was made clear in almost every scene in the bulk of Jordan’s career thus far. As an actor, Michael tends to act with his body and not in the way that some actors are taught to use it as sort of an instrument, but in a way that makes it clear just how very aware of his body he is. I don’t mean body as in the aesthetic look of it, but rather in that spacial sense. Movie star, character, actor and anywhere in between, the job is the same - you live in service of the role. Nothing else should be nearly as important to you. When you start to place other things outside above that, it becomes evident to the audience, whether they can articulate it or not. For instance, all the things we can remember from Heath Ledgers performance of the Joker in Christopher Nolan’s crime masterpiece “The Dark Knight” have to do with the choices he made. Choices that register even if we are not fully aware of it. They are each tiny pieces of a puzzle that begins to form, providing us with a full picture of this character- from idiosyncrasies to cadence, gait, motivation, objectives, and personality which were made with body and mind in perfect collaboration, and clearly in service of the character he was playing, not in service of his own ideas for his career in as far as what he wants people to understand about him or to think about him. The licking of the corners of his mouth allude to the scarring. Dramatic pauses like when he replies “I’m not…no I’m not” after Gambol calls him crazy allude to his sensitivity to the subject, or his tendency toward the dramatic, as does his numerous bits of gesturing. It is not the roles or the difference in them that goads people into jumping off the cliffs of nuance to make such oafish proclamations about MBJ. It’s partially that they’re ignorant, and partially that they recognize that the roles are equally tasty, but the actors aren’t equally game.
I don’t mean to imply that Jordan simply cynically calculates his every acting move based upon what he thinks is best for his audience and career. I mean to suggest that it is quite possible that his hyper-attention to his image in Hollywood permeates his conscious to the point even his subconscious decisions as an actor can be affected by this marching order of sorts. Now I would be remiss not to point out the fact that Michael B. Jordan is an African-American and that Heath Ledger is white because obviously as an African American, considering our legacy on film there continues to be verifiable reasons as to why we as actors would seek to protect the presentation of our images. From Portier, to Washington, Will Smith and now Jordan, we've heard this similar refrain about the manner of representation available to black men and how important it has become to us over time to have agency over this presentation. Historically African American men were portrayed as pimps, hustlers, criminals, deadbeat fathers, and other such derivative portrayals, but in what I think has become an over correction on our part in combination with the continued legacy of homophobia, transphobia, and distorted manhood borrowed from white patriarchal standards with the black community. Over the past few years Black American male leading actors have been for lack of better words homogenous in their portrayal of masculinity. They have left little room for the kind of sensibilities that lead to more interesting characters as far as I am concerned. The fact is when you think of the actors doing the most interesting work right now, the ones who really show an a-typical vulnerability in their work of a kind that really challenges standards of black masculinity rather than uphold them, that is being done by men willing to explore their feminine side with curiosity, and candor, Chiwitel Ejiofor, David Oyewelo, Mahershala Ali, LaKeith Stanfield, Yahya Mateen, Jeffrey Wright, Michael K Williams, and Daniel Kaluuya. Many of the names just mentioned are not household names, even less are actually leading men. A significant portion of the blame here is still due to Hollywood and its institutionalized racism, patronization, and myopia about what plays to audiences. They’ve long understood that leading men don’t need square chins, and rock hard bodies. The era of Hoffman, Nicholson, Voight, Pacino, and DeNiro ushered out the prevailing theory. With male actors of color, they run in extremes between fetishizing, and desexualizing us, while also dehumanizing us; rendering us a cinematic monolith. So then we are rarely afforded the wide range of opportunities and choice given to so many white male actors. Yet, it is not as simple as saying “well, African American actors don’t get the roles.” If one explores the roles our actors have gotten it’s not hard to see how uninterested these men not named Denzel, Morgan, Forrest, Cheadle and the aforementioned are in exploring their feminine energy in any meaningful and committed way. Sensitivity, empathy, and gentleness; are rarely invoked in characters like “Ghost” in TV’s “Power” in ways that explore what we men are traditionally taught are attributes of weakness. Let me tell you something it is very hard to be an actor of any salt if you are unwilling to go there. Not for Cary Grant, James Cagney, Mel Gibson, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Daniel Day Lewis, or Don Cheadle. For an example of the considerable effect this could have on a performance watch the atypical femininity Chiwitel brings to his warrior-assassin “Operative” in “Serenity”, or his soft-spoken slow-to-anger Ju-Jitsu instructor in Redbelt, never mind his Kinky Boots which is what put Ejiofor on the map.
Everything that is interesting about Ejiofor’s work in the scene above comes from the way he taps into typically feminine traits for his warrior operative. The gentleness in his inflection and cadence, the empathy he shows his victims. It’s interesting because the acts , the murder, the fighting, the interrogation typically involve masculine energy. Some of this is inherent in the role, but much of it is just what Ejiofor thinks to bring to the role. Each generation of leading black men from Poitier, James Earl Jones, and Glynn Turman, to Denzel and the class of men that came with him ( Freeman, Whitaker, etc) has passed the torch onto the next with a little bit more freedom and range to explore blackness and masculinity. Whomever the next generation of leading black men are, need to let loose of these ideas about what the world thinks of us and merely aim to represent ourselves in the truest manner of what we know to be true about who it is we are. To let go of that white man that seems to take up residence in our minds that has us moving from one direction to the other, trying to make sure we don't fall somewhere within the vicinity of misappropriated ideas about our blackness or our manhood. Of course, that means just stop it with conversations that circle the parameter of homophobic and transphobic ideas about manhood. To understand you can be gay and still be a man and still be strong. That there is strength in traits a lot of men consider to be weak like vulnerability. Real vulnerability not the kind most men have decided is safe enough to display. The direction an interview with actor Michael K. Williams took on the (frequently problematic show) The Breakfast Club is evidence that there are not a lot of black male actors willing to do roles like this, most likely because they refuse to cross those invisible lines of masculinity.
Many people point out the single tear in “Glory” as Denzel’s definitive crying moment. It works as both a feat of indelible servitude to a character and what's going on in that exact moment. His character “Trip” is not interested and giving his superiors the satisfaction of seeing him break. It takes every bit of whatever power he has remaining, whatever agency he has left over his own body to say “If there's anything I have power over, I have power over this, and I will not let you see me break.” At the same time, it falls very neatly and squarely within the realm of the way many black men, and men in general; like to see their masculinity. Men are not allowed to cry and the act itself coming from a man, especially in a way that is deemed unbecoming of a man, is repulsive. So it doesn't surprise me that very few people bring up Denzel Washington's crying scene in “The Hurricane” or in “Malcolm X.” In both films, when the character is forced into solitary confinement, they break. Left in the shadows, with only themselves, trying to stand tall, with no one watching, eventually they give in to the darkness and begin to moan. It is the exact opposite of the traits Denzel built himself on up until this point. It is UGLY, undignified, sad and pathetic. They are each scenes that I'll never forget, because of that level of vulnerability and I think both firmly put Denzel Washington on the level, that goes well beyond the limited term of movie star. It showed those kinds of sensibilities normally associated with the actor’s actor, and not the actor that treats his endeavor as an enterprise (though clearly Denzel does both). If you want to ask for the equivalent of Michael Fassbender amongst African American males, I think you would find it hard. If you were to ask for the Philip Seymour Hoffman of African American males, I think you'd find it hard to find any such thing. Not just an exact comparison, - because nobody is exactly anyone else - but just someone that firmly has a career within their realm. So wouldn't it be nice if a black man with the clout of Michael B. Jordan tore down some of these walls, these limitations placed upon us and sought more than just to become “winners”, but to become everything in between? I quote bell hooks from her book “We real Cool: Black Men and Masculinity”…
““Black males who refuse categorization are rare, for the price of visibility in the contemporary world of white supremacy is that black identity be defined in relation to the stereotype whether by embodying it or seeking to be other than it…Negative stereotypes about the nature of black masculinity continue to overdetermine the identities black males are allowed to fashion for themselves.” ”