Polarized Female Images: How the Identity of Malcolm X is Limited by Static Female Portrayals
By Lauren Calabrese, with comment by Katherine Prosswimmer
[1] In Spike Lee’s Malcolm X, the female characters function as fixed figures positioned to illuminate the evolution of Malcolm X’s black masculinity. According to Maurice E. Stevens, Lee “fuses notions of blackness with his picture of manhood by constructing an idealized femininity that functions most significantly as a prop for masculinity†(294). Moreover, Lee presents women as static polar images, either prostitute or virgin, in order to project an authentic manifestation of Malcolm X’s black personhood. In particular, Sophia, Malcolm’s white seductress and Betty Shabazz, Malcolm’s black wife, are fixtures assembled to fulfill stereotypical roles of white temptress and black domesticity. However, Lee’s orientation of female dichotomies, Sophia and Betty, ultimately limits his ability to fully explore and realize the historical depth of Malcolm X. Thus, through the investigation of Sophia and Betty, the limitations of Lee’s portrayal of women illustrates how Malcolm X as a dynamic individual is not fully realized.
[2] Literary scholar bell hooks contends that as a filmmaker, Spike Lee has a unique style that reliably portrays women unilaterally. Hooks states, “Like many females in Lee’s audience, I have found his representations of women in general, and black women in particular, to be consistently stereotypical and one-dimensional†(555). Supported by a litany of films that back this theory up such as Jungle Fever and School Daze, Lee relies upon stereotypical images of women to forward complex and diverse portraits of black males. In essence, Lee has a history of sacrificing female depth for male valorization.
Sexism is the familiar construction that links [Spike Lee’s] films to all the other Hollywood dramas folks see. Just when the viewer might possibly be alienated by the radical take on issues in a Spike Lee film, some basic sexist nonsense will appear on the screen to entertain, to provide comic relief, to comfort audiences by letting them know that the normal way of dong things is not fully challenged. (hooks 556)
Hooks posits that Lee “goes all Hollywood†and conforms to hegemonic standards in order to maintain some level of voyeuristic normalcy. Consistent with Lee’s pattern, Malcolm X appears to utilize female characters in the same way. Sophia is conceptually linked to Malcolm’s flawed consciousness and negative sense of self, while Betty signifies Malcolm’s ascension into his enlightened black selfhood.
[3] Sophia enters the movie early on during the scene “dancing delirium,†packaged as a vivacious blonde. Malcolm ditches his black girlfriend Laura for the white temptress who coyly draws him across the dance floor with the wiggle of a finger. Although introduced within the first thirteen minutes of the movie, as bell hooks recognizes, Lee spends almost half of the film focusing upon Malcolm’s relationship with “white†Sophia (557). When Sophia is on screen, Malcolm is in a state of mental squalor; her presence is the thematic thread of greed that runs through the fabric of the films narrative.
Throughout the film, Sophia (Kate Vernon) functions as the yardstick by which Malcolm’s developing consciousness can be measured. Sophia becomes the location of temptation, greed, “hustling,†and a lack of consciousness. This is not to say that Sophia represents these characteristics; rather, in the narrative space of the film, these traits cohere around her and serve to describe Malcolm as a function of his proximity to her. (Stevens 296)
As Stevens remarks, Sophia herself may not be a diabolical person, but her symbolic presence informs the current state of Malcolm’s “developing consciousness†as corrupt. In this way, Sophia is objectified as a tool, a mere “yardstick†in which the viewer may reference. Her role as an object of manipulation is further emphasized based upon Malcolm’s treatment of her, particularly in the scene titled “Sophia’s story.†In this scene, Sophia prepares and serves breakfast to Malcolm, who is propped up in his bed that symbolizes his male throne. As Sophia places the tray on the bed and sits next to Malcolm, Malcolm asserts, “what’s your story? One of them white chicks who can’t get enough colored stud, is that what you are?†He then orders Sophia to “kiss my foot.†Sophia obediently kisses Malcolm’s foot. In this moment, it is not so much that Sophia genuflects to Malcolm, but that Malcolm’s treatment of her reflects a mindset that views Sophia as an object.
[4] Earlier on in the movie, during a flashback scene “Early years,†Malcolm states that his mother married his father because of his dark complexion. Her mother had been raped by a white man, and thus she wanted to regain back her black heritage for her children. Malcolm further proclaims that his mother’s attitude “had a profound affect on me because most of our sisters have been raped or violated by the white man. So the black man can’t wait to get his hands on the white man’s pride, the white woman.†This concept of reestablishing blackness through ownership of white women is clearly stated in this scene but visually depicted during “Sophia’s story.†Although Malcolm does not directly tell Sophia he is exploiting her in order to reclaim ownership of his black manhood, his actions indicate otherwise. Malcolm objectifies Sophia through his commands and body language. He wishes to manipulate and bend her with hopes of empowering his own sense of self. However, this method proves to be inadequate, for as Lee infers, in order to fully acquire control of his black identity, Malcolm must seek to identify himself without cross-racial comparisons or interactions.
[5] Although the Sophia scenes may accurately capture Malcolm’s mentality during that time of his life, the role of Sophia throughout the movie operates to equate to the white ownership. This representation makes it appear, as bell hooks claims, “that [Malcolm’s] lust for Sophia is solely a response to racism, that having the white man’s woman is a way to rebel and assert power†(hooks). To render Sophia as the “revenge on the white man†not only marginalizes Sophia as a person but limits the full realization of Malcolm’s selfhood.
[6] Betty Shabazz is the model of female domesticity. Introduced as a woman who teaches “home arts†and nutrition within the Nation of Islam, Betty is emblematic of Malcolm’s shift from hustler to political scholar. Further, Betty is positioned in direct opposition to Sophia’s whore-like caricature and embodies the role of virgin. (see comment by Katherine Prosswimmer) Upon Betty’s arrival, Malcolm concurrently transforms into a committed Muslim and responsible husband. Betty’s proximity to Malcolm literally extends and promotes visions of an idealized black family life. As Steven alleges, “Betty’s idealized performance of an authentically black femininity functions as the every-present prop that supports and makes possible Malcolm’s equally idealized masculinity. Lee visually reinforces the interdependence of these idealized performances of racialized gender through strict framing techniques†(297).
[7] Through the angles of the camera, Lee visually captures Malcolm’s reliance upon Betty as the moral anchor. In many of Malcolm’s scenes with Betty, instead of using reverse-point-of-view shots, Lee places Malcolm and Betty side by side and slowly tightens the space around them. The audience is only offered one angle to view Betty; her relation to Malcolm and in the movie is one-dimensional. This static representation of Betty, like Sophia, limits the full realization of Malcolm’s relationship and corresponding personal development. Although it has been documented that Betty left Malcolm on multiple occasions because of marital strife and that, in fact, Betty never actually argued with Malcolm because of the Nation of Islam’s code of behavior, to no avail Lee remained steadfast in his presentation of Betty.
[8] Spike Lee’s Malcolm X offers a lengthy glimpse into the life of Malcolm X. As a director, his cinematic talents are undeniable, and his ambitions to take on such a historically pervasive story are noble. Lee strives to present the dynamic leader Malcolm X from many different progressions in his life. However, the over 3-hour movie does not seem to do justice to the man Malcolm X. For the limited portrayals of the women in Malcolm’s life inevitably constrain the full realization of Malcolm as a man. The movie would more accurately commemorate the life of Malcolm X if the roles of women would break the glass ceiling of hegemonic Hollywood standards. But, until then, Malcolm X will remain in the status quo.
Comments
I think Lauren brings up some great points here. It is clear that Lee's portrayal of women is severely lacking, which I find to be somewhat ironic. In many other movies that portray events from black history, the portrayal of blacks is often critiqued as being one-dimensional or inaccurate (The Birth of a Nation, Mississippi Burning). Here Lee has achieved a powerful and effective portrayal of black agency in the fight for civil rights and equality but only by trading on the neglect of one group (women) for the benefit of the other (black men). Lauren discusses Betty Shabazz and Sophia as polar opposites, but they are both linked through the ball and chain of domesticity. Though Sophia is clearly more of a temptress, she is still depicted cooking and serving Malcolm and, later, her white husband. She remains a temptress by bringing Malcolm his breakfast while wearing nothing but a silky slip, but she can only function in her diversified role while upholding her responsibility to domesticity. Similarly, Betty Shabazz seems to be a character of female empowerment. She boldly talks to Malcolm despite his intimidating stature and becomes a sort of moral compass for him during their marriage. However, as Lauren describes, she is strongly tied to domesticity. She actively participates in the Islamic movement but only by teaching "home arts" and nutrition. After she is married, we only see her tending to the children at home or standing faithfully next to Malcolm during an address.
Perhaps most tellingly, Malcolm's mother is taken away to a mental institution when she can no longer perform adequately in her domestic role. Delivering a domestic performance seems to be the foundation of female social participation in Malcolm X. Malcolm's mother cannot participate in society because of her failure to deliver. Once that role is fulfilled, women are free to act as they wish (to a certain point). Their role is limited in every sense of the word, which leads me to agree with Lauren's main point; if, as we see through the role of Betty Shabazz, two halves of a couple work to inspire and guide each other but one is restricted from realizing her full potential, how can the other?
