Before the 70s, it was rare for an Afrikan person to go to the theater and see a widely distributed movie that had a cast of all Afrikan people that did not center a white protagonist. The exploitation of Afrikan bodies in cinema allowed for Afrikan people to move up within Hollywood and receive representation, but also led to the damaging distribution of harmful Afrikan stereotypes. This genre was labeled “blaxploitation”, with the NAACP officially coining the term alongside the formation of the Coalition Against Blaxploitation. The NAACP, backed by other critics, flagged these movies for perpetuating harmful stereotypes about the Afrikan community in amerikkka.
Although originally produced by Afrikan people, featuring Afrikan people, for Afrikan people, the greed within Hollywood took advantage of what they saw as a profitable genre to exploit, leading to white influence seeping into the production of afrikan films: blaxploitation. Despite the exploitation from white Hollywood, Afrikan stories were somewhat finally able to be told to a larger audience through these films, including Afrikan social issues that were previously censored from mainstream media which was monumental for the 70s.
As a sacrifice for working in these roles, Afrikans had to depict stereotypes in these movies, which was then fed to the rest of Afrikan amerikkka, who undoubtedly were drawn to these movies as they were the only representation at the time. This perpetuated an endless cycle of creating these movies to please the audiences, and the audiences only being able to turn to these films for representation.
Despite being impactful in terms of pushing Afrikan actors into the spotlight and giving actors roles that extended beyond subservience to their white counterparts, it did so by exploiting Afrikan stereotypes using Afrikan labor. Blaxploitation assisted in using harmful stereotypes for entertainment, essentially forcing Afrikan actors into another role of servitude. This time, the role of servitude is one that is disguised and repackaged to be sent off to Afrikan moviegoers.
Acknowledging its controversial impact in amerikkkan culture, we must also accept that this allowed for cinema to reach a new audience. The featuring of Afrikan actors as the lead characters in movies such as Super Fly and Blacula, influenced more Afrikan people to turn to the cinema for entertainment. The question we must ask is if this “inclusion” was harmful or helpful to shaping our futures, imaginations, and capacity for struggle.
The controversy surrounding blaxploitation reveals a deeper issue within Hollywood, a fundamental contradiction that allows for a severe lack of representation and an inability to be free within a “creative space.” Hollywood was never meant for everyone. When blaxploitation began to become more popularized, it came at a time when Afrikan actors could hardly find work in the industry. Afrikans were able to be featured in movies in roles that weren’t second to their white costars and could be featured in a film with only other Afrikan people.
Blaxploitation generated inspiration among the Afrikan creative community, specifically in terms of its cinematic style, with future generations leaving behind most of the heavy harmful stereotypes and adopting a focusing on Afrikan life.
To move forward from the harmful representation of Blaxploitation, we must divest from the external validation of white Hollywood. We must create room within our own communities that allows for Afrikan producers, directors, and actors to pursue work that is meaningful and tells real and raw stories, helping to influence future generations of Afrikans. Hollywood is not responsible for saving us as the mainstream entertainment industry and media function to legitimize the state and the status quo: oppression, degradation and violence against Afrikan people. Understanding this, we are provided with new opportunities to recenter ourselves and redefine what creativity, success and storytelling should look like within our own communities.