Chapter 3 THE CONCEPT OF WHITENESS AND AMERICAN FILM

      It may seem odd to begin an exploration of the representations of racial and ethnic minorities with a chapter on the images of white people in American cinema. However, to fully understand how certain people and communities are considered to be racial minorities, it is also necessary to examine how the empowered majority group conceives of and represents itself. Doing so places white communities under a microscope, and reveals that the concept of whiteness (the characteristics that identify an individual or a group as belong to the Caucasian race) is not as stable as is commonly supposed. Under white patriarchal capitalism, ideas about race and ethnicity are constructed and circulated in ways that tend to keep white privilege and power in place. Yet surveying representations of whiteness in American film raises fundamental questions about the very nature of race and/or ethnicity. Although it may surprise generations of the twenty‐first century, some people who are now commonly considered to be white were not considered so in the past. The most common designation of whiteness in the United States is the term WASP, which stands for White Anglo‐Saxon Protestant. People of non‐Anglo‐Saxon European ancestry have historically had to negotiate their relation to whiteness. If American culture had different ideas about who was considered white at different times over the past centuries, then claims about race and ethnicity as absolute markers of identity become highly problematic.

      This chapter explores the differing socio‐historical and cinematic constructions of whiteness throughout the history of American film. It examines the representations of several (but not all) of the communities that were not originally welcomed into American society as white, but which have been more recently assumed to belong to this racial category. The following discussion examines how these groups were represented with certain stereotypes, how these communities developed strategies for acceptance by white society, and how cinema functioned as part of this cultural negotiation. But first, the chapter begins with a discussion of how film works within dominant hegemonic culture to subtly – and almost invisibly – speak about the centrality of whiteness.

Seeing White

      One of the hardest aspects of discussing how white people are represented in American cinema (and in Western culture‐at‐large) is the effort it takes for individuals even to see that racial/ethnic issues are involved with white characters or stories. By and large, the average moviegoer thinks about issues of race only when seeing a movie about a racial or ethnic minority group. For example, most romantic comedies find humor in how male and female characters each try to hold the upper hand in a relationship. Yet Just Wright (2010) starring two African American actors (Queen Latifah and Common), is regarded by some Americans as a “black” romantic comedy, whereas the popular Bridget Jones films (2001, 2004, 2016) starring two white actors (Renée Zellweger and Colin Firth), would tend to be regarded as simply romantic comedies, and not as “white” films. Similarly, it was a cultural event when Black Panther (2018) became one of the first blockbuster films about a “black” superhero, whereas Deadpool (2016) was simply a film about a snarky superhero – period. The fact that Black Panther was not received as just another superhero film tells us that race does still matter to filmgoers (of all races and ethnicities), and that it was a much‐needed corrective to the overall general unremarked‐upon assumption of whiteness within the genre. These examples also underscore the Hollywood assumption that all viewers, whatever their racial identification, should be able to identify with white characters, but that the reverse is seldom true. (Perhaps the tremendous financial success of Black Panther is evidence that contemporary white filmgoers are more able to relate to black characters than in the past.) Still, even today many white viewers choose not to see films starring non‐white actors or films set in minority or ethnic environments, allegedly because they feel they cannot identify with the characters. Because of that fact, Hollywood tends to spend more money on white stars in white movies, and far less money on non‐white actors in overtly racial or ethnic properties. Hollywood is always concerned when a film might be perceived as “too black,” or “too Hispanic,” knowing that such a perception will most likely cost revenue at the box office, should the film fail to crossover to white audiences.

Furthermore, the very structure of classical Hollywood narrative form encourages all spectators, regardless of their actual color, to identify with white protagonists. This may result in highly conflicted viewing positions, as when Native American spectators are encouraged by Hollywood Westerns to root for white cowboys battling evil Indians. This situation was especially prevalent in previous decades, when non‐white actors were rarely permitted to play leading roles in Hollywood films, and when racialized stereotypes in movies were more obvious and prevalent. However, in an acknowledgement of our population’s diversity, over the last several decades an ever‐increasing number of non‐white characters have been appearing in Hollywood movies. More and more films each year now feature non‐white leads, and even more regularly, non‐white actors in supporting roles. Sometimes this practice is referred to as tokenism – the placing of a non‐white character into a film in order to deflate any potential charge of racism. Token characters can often be found in small supporting roles that