So my friends and I went to see this the other night and a documentary about Melvin van Peebles before as part of a double feature; How to Eat Your Watermelon in White Company (and Enjoy It). I knew NOTHING about Melvin van Peebles before going, but I do have what I would consider a decent understanding/background with regard to the history of Black Panthers, civil rights struggle, etc...

I found it really troubling that one of the opening scenes of Sweet Sweetback...has his son, Mario, nude and "having sex" with an adult! I mean, how could he possibly justify this as a cinematic decision?

And according to imdb.com Melvin contracted gonnorhea from one of the actresses during the filming--were they actually having sex during this movie; and if so--how is this film any different from a bad porno?

Also, from the documentary, Melvin said that he wanted to make Sweet Sweetback...a movie that blacks would like, but then he also states that he didn't like how (white) society viewed black males as purely sexual. (I'm paraphrasing from memory here.) But then the whole film is full of sex & violence; so it's like he is perpetuating this stereotype of over sexed and violent black men. I understand he was portraying what he felt was the life of many blacks who were sick of "the man", but I find his whole stance a bit hypocritical and troubling. I mean, Sweetback didn't have a great life to begin with, before he got involved with Mu-Mu and the cops. (He was a male prostitute, from my understanding.)

Has anyone else seen this movie (Sweet Sweetback)--or the documentary? What are your thoughts in the context of civil rights/black power, cinematically, and van Peebles' relevence today? Thoughtful responses appreciated.

I've seen Solo. I think certain genes skipped a generation.







Yes, I basically have nothing constructive to add, but ever was it thus.

Fauxie said:

If more people would add that at the end of their posts brother then the org would be a better place....you are saint of man and Im proud to be of the same blood if not same skin color....

Sinister said:

I know, at least I'm honest right?

Ok, I'm going to jack this thread now, if that's alright. How's the starkitty thing going? Is it going at all?

Fauxie said:

That thread I made chronicling her coming and going is still being built....In a week or so I will orgnote her with the link and let her bathe in the depravity that is our adoration

Starkitty edit
[Edited 1/24/06 20:54pm]

Fauxie said:

well at least I tried... maybe someone will take pity on my thread and actually try to start a dialogue....

Sinister said:

It'd be so cool if she then didn't post on the thread. I'd want to die, and that's hawt.

maybe I should try it in the politics forum...

jone70 said:

thats all you can do sometimes... take comfort in knowing this thread will be all about Starkitty now....

jone70 said:

Edit your initial post and put some pics in. That'll liven things up a little. Also, if the pics are related to Sweet Sweetback that'd be even better.

Fauxie said:

Thanks for the suggestions.

Carry on with starkitty talk.

Fauxie said:

Or if she posts one of those cool 1 or 2 word heart shattering words of indifference like she has done in the past...I would be declared legally brain dead...

Sinister said:

Pity is the org currency. I can't recall posting on a thread for reasons other than pity. I can empathise, you see, with anyone who starts a pitiful thread. My org-esteem relies almost completely on pitiful thread starters reciprocating my pity. If you can harness the power of pity you can create what appears for all intents and purposes to be popularity. Have a think about that.

I've seen Sweet Sweetback and studied it in depth in college, though it has been quite a while. Within that context, it was treated as a serious, eminent filmic text -- though I'd have to watch it again to offer a justification as to why.

From what little I know of blaxploitation films, Sweet Sweetback was following in that genre -- which was hugely abundant in the 70's -- and possibly elevated the genre to a type of art film. It's important, I think, to consider the era in which it appeared where we could more generously call it "progressive" than perhaps today -- considering there have been many changes in our expectations of black portrayal. (Do not talk to me about "Hustle and Flow"...)

From what I do recall, I really like this film. The wildness of it, the open structure, the dissonance, and the unsealed ending.

I would like to see the documentary, didn't know there was one. Melvin's son (Martin, I think?) is also a director of much more conventional, commercial fare.

jone70 said:

You're welcome. And someone dared suggest the org isn't friendly anymore.

Rest assured, the next time you start a pitiful thread, I'll be right behind you.

Sinister said:

I love those comments. They just destroy my very core.

Fauxie said:

Again you speak the gospel....I recommend you for "Org Preacher"...What you just wrote should be the first thing you read when you log on to the org. The Church of Faux has a nice ring to it...

Fauxie said:

I find the numbness in my lower reigon is the most enjoyable part....Is it from a mild stroke? I don't know...but I do know she destroys my will like no other...

Sinister said:

It does, doesn't it? I think I could do a job here. I could read up on this whole 'being nice' thing while in the blissful seclusion of my towering, mountain-top temple and then present to the world my extremely appealing vision of disingenuous harmony among all humans and most animals.

Sinister said:

Yeah, I get that. Intense, crippling pain for several seconds that alludes to an imminent ceasing of life, her hair flashing before my eyes, a light at the end of a tunnel, a feeling of weightlessness, then falling down a seemingly endless dark pit, before the uncontrollable crying and shaking. I guess the only thing I could compare it to is a really bad toothache. You get used to it.

I've never seen this movie but I have always wanted to.It was very controversial back in 1971.I do have the soundtrack on CD,though.It features music by the then-unknown Earth Wind and Fire.

It's a strange movie. Parts of it don't make sense....like the fairy waving the wand and sprinkling the flames of the "sparkler" on the man's dick. People were sitting around at a party watching them have sex. Sounds like my kind of party though. Then there's the scene with him having sex and a whole bunch of bikers are gathered around watching. He gets up and you can see his dick. I've worn my pause button out. I need it on DVD so I can zoom in close. The opening scene was really a trip though. I'm surprised that scene wasn't banned because it's a little boy having sex with a woman.

My dad took me to see it when i was a kid and explained it to me and then i got it,and for my Birthday i was hipped to the soundtrack by Earth wind and fire.id love to get this on dvd.

heartbeatocean said:


The documentary said that Sweetback was actually a precursor to blaxploitation films. When Hollywood saw how popular it was, they mimicked the sex, violence, etc, but without the political aspect. Mario van Peebles made a great point about the difference in the two types of films--Sweetback made it "cool" to be politically active and fight for your rights against 'the man', but blaxploitation films made it "cool" to be drug dealers and pimps. I thought that was a really powerful point.



The other son's name is Max and there is also a daughter, Meagan.

DavidEye said:

Melvin wrote some of the songs too...especially the "theme" song: They bled your mama! They bled your poppa! Did he do the Feet Don't Fail Me Now song? There was a part in the documentary about how he wrote down the music by using numbers--which corresponded to the location of piano keys. I think Melvin's a little

vainandy said:

I thought that was the dyke fairy sprinking the sparkler on the strap-on the woman dressed as a man was wearing... either way, a little trippy.



Yes! That was his SON, Mario van Peebles. My friends & I were like:

Part of the 'marketing' of the movie was that it was "Rated X by an all white jury" and Melvin basically refused to submit the film to the ratings board b/c they weren't very diverse. I mean, did the dude ever consider the X rating was due to the child sex, lesbian strap-on sex, or the biker sex scenes?! I feel the political message could have been made equally well or even stronger (imo) without ALL the sex...especially the scene with Mario.

My friend said, "This is the vainest movie ever made." Because it's Melvin himself starring as Sweetback, having sex with all these women, and he assauges the bikers by a contest in "fuckin'". (I never really figured out how that was a contest... )

I've heard so much about this movie
but I've never seen it
gonna look for it on ebay

jone70 said:

Interesting. Thanks for clarifying that for me.