Like Trump, Coogler must play to his base in spite of entry into exclusive film fraternity

Rating: 4/10 (22 March 2018)

Somehow I have a feeling that director Ryan Coogler anticipated the success of his Black Panther as well as the dilemma he now finds himself in. As a newly minted member of (the almost all-white) film establishment, and (probably now) a multi-millionaire to boot, Coogler undoubtedly had to figure out a way to fend off accusations from his base, of being a "sell-out." He did this by crafting his Black Panther script along with co-writer Joe Robert Cole to appeal to the masses of ordinary African-Americans who don't belong to an exclusive club of rich people that Coogler has recently joined.

Coogler accomplishes his appeal to the base first by embracing the idealistic, utopian vision of Africa in the form of the nation of Wakanda, a Marvel comics invention, that harks back to films from the 30s such as Lost Horizon, where a "mysterious, harmonious valley", dubbed "Shangri-la," thrives, somehow protected merely by mountains and a large number of overarching clouds.

The whole idea is to present a positive image of African culture (mainly for) African-American youth in light of a history of put-downs which began of course during slavery times, when horrible stereotyped images of black people were first introduced and subsequently proliferated. Unfortunately, the tendency now is to go to the other extreme, so the blacks of Coogler's Wakanda are all powerful due to possession of the magical Vibranium, the super metal that gives them the technology to not only compete with the former (white) colonial powers of the world, but to surpass them!

The ascendancy of black power as depicted here is nothing more than wish fulfillment, and clashes with the true political history of Africa since each country achieved independence and threw off the yoke of their colonial masters after World War II. Coogler knows that the phony Wakanda is much more appealing with its lack of corruption and suggestion of complete female empowerment (he also throws in some completely out of place Star Wars-like spaceships just to prove he's as good as any established sci-fi director).

By playing to the base, Coogler refuses to present a "warts and all" portrait of the African homeland and reinforces what amounts to chauvinism (excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for one's own cause, group, or gender). Although Coogler holds up the tribal infighting in Wakanda as some kind of cause célèbre, it's really an unconscious admission that African history is not so wonderful. As Patrick Gathara writes in the Washington Post, Africa is represented here "as being divided and tribalized, with Wakanda run by a wealthy and feuding elite, centered upon "royalty and warriors", whose fortune comes not from its citizens' skill or ingenuity, but from a "lucky meteor strike."

Coogler's other strategy to win over the masses is to introduce a vengeful antagonist, Killmonger, played by Michael B. Jordan, the former protagonist star of Coogler's prior effort, Creed. Here, Jordan is much more effective playing the bad guy, since Coogler's protagonists apparently all tend to be rather bland (that includes the star of this film, Chadwick Boseman, who plays King T'Challah and the Black Panther (all rolled into one).

We first meet Killmonger in a flashback when he's just a kid in 1992 Oakland, California. This is where his father is killed by T'Challah's dad after he's discovered working with the racist South African Ulysses Klaue, who is attempting to steal Vibranium from Wakanda. Killmonger holds a grudge into adulthood and is determined to seek revenge against his uncle and cousin (as well as all whites).

Some may say that by Coogler using the name "Killmonger" (an obvious pejorative appellation), this suggests that he disapproves of the character's militant position. But think again. T'Challah doesn't finish Killmonger off at film's end-quite the contrary, he offers to save his life, if he only submits to eventual imprisonment. Killmonger instead takes his own life-Coogler views Killmonger's death as clearly tragic and obviously has sympathy for him.

By evoking some measure of sympathy for the villain, Coogler sets another bad example for impressionable youth, suggesting that Killmonger's position has merit. And what exactly is Killmonger's position? He seeks revenge (as well as hegemony over) all whites associated with the excesses of colonialism in an African past. This of course ignores the fact that the almost all of the nations of Africa have been independent for at least 50 years and are responsible for their own shortcomings which of course include (first and foremost), rampant corruption (not to mention subjugation of women and other human rights violations).

The strategy is of course to find a familiar scapegoat and deflect any calls for self-responsibility. Some may argue that Coogler is actually conflicted about this issue of revenge, especially because he depicts T'Challah as being conciliatory toward whites and seemingly rejects violence at film's end. But in actuality, Coogler's embrace of a Martin Luther King Jr. hero is merely done as a matter of expediency-he must suck up to the powers that be so they allow him into the exclusive film fraternity which he craves to be part of. In a sense, T'Challah's actions are almost a footnote-down deep, Coogler's real sympathies remain with the masses of deluded militants-with their puerile (and self-destructive) call for vengeance.

When one looks closely at Coogler, one sees a very technically capable director who will remain a mediocrity as long as he continues to suck up to the mass of deluded chauvinists who embrace vengeance as a means of solving the sorry legacy of slavery and racism in the United States today.