I guess it is merely a “Sign of the Times”. The fact that our contemporaries are incapable of differentiating between entertainment “inspired by real-life events” and in-depth scholarship. Such failings speak volumes about not only the education system but also the misplaced faith that so many place in non-scholarly sources of information. 

Of course, the primary impetus for the above thoughts is the over the top reaction of so many Blacks to the Hollywood film, Harriet. 

As they are known to do, the so-called “woke” community has called for all to boycott Harriet for lack of historical accuracy among other things. In many ways, a perfect storm of race, representation, and voice caused this brouhaha. The presence of Kate Larson, a White female who served as the historical consultant on Harriet, did not help matters at all as her presence exacerbated critics’ propensity to form outlandish conspiracy theories.

Let me be forthright regarding this issue of Whites telling the story of Black ancestors like Harriet Tubman. In many ways, I am uncomfortable with the proposition of such a remarkable story being placed in the hands of the White imagination, an imagination that rarely has presented a suitable recitation of Black life. 

Yet, this posting has less to do with Kate Larson and everything to do with the production of edutainment by Hollywood Studios. To simplify my thoughts regarding this matter, I must state that my definition of edutainment is the means of describing media creations aimed at introducing a historical topic while providing entertainment to viewers. More times than not, those who consume these popular culture depictions of events “inspired by real-life events” have little knowledge about what they are viewing. In actuality, these types of films are phenomenal ways of introducing a historical event to the general public.

One thing that is obvious about the droves who have chosen to criticize Harriet is that they have no understanding of the writing process. There is not a serious writer alive who will deny that every story has gaps within it. Writers circles’ are filled with those who lament that the story does not “flow” in an entertaining manner; in fact, this problem is so pervasive that there are support groups for writers who are afflicted by “writer’s block.” Such moments can be the height of frustration for writers wed to that sultry siren or witch called historical accuracy. Alas, the demonic entity does not possess every writer in the same manner. Those constructors of “historical fiction” have well-established means of dealing with that thing called historical facts. They use an Excalibur called “literary license” to free their pen in ways that are unimaginable to others. This literary device is as common in Hollywood as actors or a script. 

One needs to look no further than Spike Lee’s iconic Malcolm X blockbuster film for verification of the use of “creative license.” Fortunately for Lee, his movie, rife with moments of “historical fiction,” was wildly celebrated by adoring Black audiences for a host of reasons. 

I am confident that if one interviewed the writers of Spike Lee’s Malcolm X regarding how they conquered the Herculean task of abbreviating Malcolm’s heroic life to fit on the “big screen,” the words “literary license” would figure prominently in that discussion. Although I am not psychic, I guarantee you that a significant portion of that discussion would revolve around “Brother Baines.” 

Let’s be clear on this matter, “Brother Baines” is birthed through “creative license” and used to push the riveting story along. “Brother Baines” is the bridge between Malcolm’s incarceration to his arrival and exit from the Nation of Islam. Any decent writer of “historical fiction” will tell you that such characters are a convenient tool used to move a story along without introducing a slew of characters that will slow momentum by confusing viewers.  

These attacks on Harriet reveal a disappointing reality that many can not distinguish between a scholarly book/documentary from an edutainment Hollywood biopic. 

In the end, it appears that the critics of Harriet are doing what comes natural to them; that being, providing criticism that is neither constructive nor address the major issue of presenting stories capable of capturing the minds of young African-Americans. Such critics are ironically serving as a roadblock to the process of sparking the imagination of Black youth to a large audience. Who knows if this exposure will serve as the impetus to them exploring the Black experience in an uncommon manner. Sadly, this unwise course of action, caused by a conventional literary device that they do not understand, threatens to seal a reasonable path to develop a bourgeoning interest in African-American studies among American youth. 

What a blind and stupid people we can be at inopportune times.

Dr. James Thomas Jones III