Total Pageviews

Sunday, August 30, 2020

42 and the passing of T’Challa

 

42, movie, psychoanalysis, psychology, Jackie Robinson

 

What a weird confluence of events in this COVID weirdest of weird years.  The shortened baseball year celebrated Jackie Robinson Day, usually celebrated in the spring, with all players, as usual wearing his number 42 on Friday.  This was also the 57th anniversary of the “I have a dream” speech by MLK, Jr., and it was the day that Chadwick Boseman, the actor most famous for playing the Black Panther (T'Challa) in the Marvel Universe, but also for portraying Jackie Robinson in 42, died.  So last night, we decided to watch 42, a film that we have not yet seen – and one that was better suited for a date night than some of our more recent, darker fare.

 

Don’t get me wrong, the film is portraying very dark aspects of our culture – and it hinges on the relationship between Branch Rickey, who is ultimately revealed to be the guilt ridden owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, and Robinson, the first player to cross the color line in 1947 and play in Major League Baseball.  While it is Rickey who is pulling the strings and shooting a shot across the bow of complacent, segregated America, it is Robinson who must bear the burden of the storm of hatred that this transgression unleashes.

 

But it is presented as a triumphal movie that charts the course of a team, a town, and ultimately a country that shifts its position regarding the inclusion of people of color in the American dream.  And I think, even if this weren’t the summer of Black Lives Matter’s ascendancy, and the naked ways in which we have seen that this dream has not been realized, it falls flattest in depicting this transition.

 

The characters who are pro integration from the beginning of this film are the most likeable, but most importantly, the most believable.  Jackie Robinson’s character, his aggressive questioning of the crazy laws and limits that surround America’s treatment of blacks, and then his agreement to turn that aggression against himself, to use it to quell the tremendous fury that is unleashed in him but that cannot be displayed at any time because of the repercussions it would reap for him, is brilliantly brought to life by Chadwick.

 

We briefly sampled “The Jackie Robinson Story”, a film in which a middle aged and paunchy Jackie Robinson plays himself, where all of that fire has long been sealed over, and we see the long term impact not just of the violence that was done to him, but of the violence he did to himself to keep himself contained within himself.  He figured out how to slow down the questions from reporters just as he slowed down the opposing team’s pitches to figure out how to address each of them – and, in the process, built a shell around his core.  Chadwick portrayed what lay underneath that shell in the best tradition of artistically recreating a character – just as Lin Manuel-Miranda’s portrayal in Hamilton! gets under the skin of the character to show its essence.

 

The sense of the presence of Chadwick’s persona – his own contribution to the character – is an intriguing question, especially in light of the revelation that he has been struggling to manage colon cancer during many of his recent roles, including as the doomed leader of the Vietnam War Vets in Da 5 Bloods.  His portrayal of the character in that film seems more authentically worldly weary in light of this revelation.  Do we know the person behind the persona?  Could a white man (or woman for that matter) have accurately portrayed Robinson? 

 

Branch Rickey, nicely portrayed by Harrison Ford, is at the center of this film.  And, when Robinson wants to know if Rickey can understand the pain he is experiencing, Rickey acknowledges that he cannot.  His position of privilege prevents it.  It was Rickey's inspiration and insistence that brought Robinson to Brooklyn.  And the question that looms throughout the film is, why?  And the answer, as it should be, is multi-determined.  The first reason, and certainly an important one, is financial.  He would get a great player at a bargain price, improve the quality of the team, and draw more African Americans to the ball park.

 

The deeper question – one that Robinson keeps wondering about as he takes more and more abuse – is the moral reason.  That comes, at least in part, from Rickey’s Methodist beliefs in the equality of all humans in God’s eyes.  But more deeply it lies in the sympathy – he clarifies that sympathy is a Greek term that means suffering with another – that he felt for a fellow player, a catcher, at Ohio Wesleyan when they were teammates and the catcher, who was black, was refused housing at a hotel.

 

I think this critical question – how does this white man come to feel sympathy for this black man is a question that is at the center of the film and one that the film does not clearly address.  For Rickey, I think the psychodynamic interpretation would have to do with his failed efforts to repress his guilt for not having helped his old teammate enough.  But we would still want to know what caused the sense of connection in the first place?  Why do we connect with this person, but pity - and therefore not care about - that one?  Once Rickey cares about an individual, how does that generalize to wanting to help the entire race – including Robinson – whom he wanted to help even before he met him?  And how is that related to his ability to suppress his sympathy for the Robinson he knew enough to not step in to stop the necessary abuse that would be coming his way (was there a way he could do this?), but more importantly to step in and push him to go back and take some more, with the consolation that winning the game would be the reward.

 

Robinson got the message from Rickey – that Rickey was there to support him.  It was less clear that the other teammates got it.  The fans were taken with Robinson’s daring on the base paths – and with the excitement that having him in the game provided.  I had a taste of this when Deon Sanders played for our local team.  When he got on base, the entire game changed.  The pitcher had to pay attention to him and when he did, the batter suddenly had the upper hand, and we just knew that we might get to see a stolen base or something beyond that – scoring from first on a single by the next hitter.

 

The other players are portrayed as being angry at being part of the sideshow – and by this they are manifestly referring to the hoopla that went along with Robinson’s crossing the invisible but tangible color barrier.  But I think it was more than that – though the film doesn’t capture it.  The team won the pennant largely because of a player they did not want to play with at the beginning of the year.  Some of them warmed to him, some did not.  But the shifts were wooden and not convincing. 

 

Jackie Robinson was a person – but also a symbol.  He lived inside an odd bubble.  Isolated from his teammates – at least for the first year, uncertain of their loyalty, he was supported by Rickey, by a black reporter that Rickey hired to look after him, and by his wife.  In life he had support from others – including his mother and his brother – but there is a portrayal here of a man who has to rely on himself more and more to carry him through very difficult times.  He does this with a certain grace – and a certain rigidity – he is uncertain that others can be relied on, so he holds himself apart – from them, but also from some of the natural joy that was generally his.

 

Generally a tragedy is when a person relies on his character in ways that drive him, unwittingly, towards a destructive end.  In this film, the crucible that creates Robinson’s character mirrors the repression that Rickey failed to manage so that he would try to help a race after he had failed to help a member of that race (I know race is a construction – and it was certainly a visceral construction during the time this movie portrays).  So the tragedy is that the culture prevents this man from playing this sport as joyfully as his natural spirit, ability, and hard work should have allowed him to do.

 

He becomes a hero, but the personal cost of this heroism is tremendous.  And, while the effects of his actions are necessarily great, they are not great enough, in and of themselves, to come close to effecting the kinds of changes that we are still very much in pursuit of achieving.  We have much more to do than allotting police money to various social supports.  We have to deinstitutionalize racism.  This turned out to be a momentous, but, in the scale of things, small step on a very long road.  Changing an individual is difficult.  Changing a culture magnifies that difficulty many times over.


In Black Panther, T'Challa is the king of a hidden African country that has escaped the ravages of colonialism.  In his role as king, but more importantly of citizen of a country where he does not feel isolated by his race, he is able to realize his potential.  I think that our largely successful efforts to repress our collective role in that colonialism, including here in the colony that revolted, lies at the heart of our unwillingness to let go of the repressive barriers that we have erected to people realizing themselves.  Branch Rickey's exposure of his own feelings of guilt, and Robinson's hiding his feelings of righteous indignation are the recipe for change in this film.  I think we need many more ingredients to create a stew that will warm and connect us all.


To access a narrative description of other posts on this site, link here.  For a subject based index, link here. 


To subscribe to posts (which occur 2-3 times per month), just enter your email in the subscribe by email box to the right of the text.


 

 


No comments:

Post a Comment

The Covenant of Water: Is it a Great Book?

 Covenant of Water, Abraham Verghese, Psychoanalysis, Psychology, Diversity, Quality Is The Covenant of Water a Great Book?   Abraham Vergh...