(1988), Colors directed by Denis Hopper, is a controversial film about gang life in Los Angeles and its opening day was widely anticipated and a cause for concern. Across the nation it was feared that the realness and accuracy of the film would incite violence between rival gangs (Masters). As progressive as this film was seen as being having researched gang life and kept the film as close to ,,reality as possible further inspection reveals that it not only perpetuates preconceived notions of Latinos and Blacks in terms of gender and sexuality, but it also fosters the ideas of Enlightened Racism which continuously lays the blame of failing to achieve the American Dream on the ,,bad culture of the people themselves. In American culture there are two specific categories involved in defining a persons gender: male or female; that is to say, masculine or feminine. Popular discourses within American society about gender and sexuality place White heterosexuals as the ideals of both masculinity and femininity. This act of exclusion from those other than the considered ,,norm creates a hierarchy within each respective category, and yet another hierarchy between the two categories themselves. While there is a gradation in regards to both masculinity and femininity, the following section will focus on the films depiction of the various forms of masculinity, in contrast to the depiction of women as gender only slightly touching on differentiation in terms of race with a later section mainly focusing on the racialized feminine hierarchy and the sexuality stratum that corresponds. It is made known through common discourse that white heterosexual males dominate the hierarchy within masculinity. To be anything other than this ideal is to deviate from both the norm and the idealized masculine form. Although gender was not
an intended topic of concern in Colors, a scene at the beginning of the film in which Sean Penns character, Danny McGavin, is introduced as the self-proclaimed, "guardian of masculinity," the film automatically asserts the presence of a hierarchy. McGavin, a young, white, hot-tempered police officer is Americas ideal masculine man; he is an attractive, upstanding citizen, a protector and facilitator of law and order, his only visible emotion is that which enables him to be tough, yet he is capable of meaningful relationships with women. Throughout the film these ideals are manifested as he continuously bears an acceptably tough demeanor, physically overpowering and dominating the lesser Latino and Black gang members, emasculating them as he does so. He constantly berates the minority men and uses excessive force, usually to the point interference from his partner, and goes even further in his securing of domination by forcefully frisking the genital area of one headstrong Black man during a pat-down search, making the man jerk away from him, first in fear, then in anger, after which he succumbs to the emasculation and becomes subdued, accepting his domination by the superior white male. It is made clear by McGavins actions, and the responses of the minority men he interacts with, that the white male commands dominance over all others. In turn, it is this ability to command and dominate that permits McGavin to not only pursue a sexual relationship with an attractive, Latina, woman but is able to develop an emotional one as well. Thus, he exemplifies the ideal; he is that which every man should aspire to resemble and what every woman should aspire to attract tough, powerful, and rugged, yet simultaneously capable of romance and passion. On the contrary, Latino and Black men in the film, and American society as a whole, are forced into a ,,racialized form of masculinity where their masculine value
stems only from being exorbitantly tough, taking the white ideal to an extreme to which it is severely undesirable. In Colors, Latino and Black men establish their masculinity by surpassing their white counterpoints toughness, becoming dangerously violent constantly carrying weapons, shooting guns, and murdering people with little regard for reason being highly aggressive, and using extreme amounts of profanity as if to further acknowledge their manliness. All the while establishing their dominance over women, no matter their race, either by berating them into submission or by physically and sexually overpowering them. The minority men are made to typify all of the undesirable extremes of intense masculinity, resulting in poverty, severe violence, and the inability to maintain anything other than purely sexual relationships with women. Black and Latino men are, in turn, depicted as dominant over women, if solely by brute force and intimidation, while concurrently being dominated by white men, like McGavin, who are the ideal. Taking a backseat to men and their battle of masculinity is the depiction of women as a whole throughout the film. Never taking up too much screen time, or rarely being noticeable at all, women mostly blend into the backdrop in different scenes or are used as props in others. Most white and Latina women are objectified in the majority of the film either by sitting on a mans lap, dancing at house parties in tight fitting clothes, as sexual conquests, or are pictured as being highly domestic by cooking or taking care of children. Restricted to highly feminized, gender-based activities, most of the white and Latina women are never shown taking on a more empowered or important role. In fact, few women in the film even speak on screen, most are mute and are there strictly to be
seen and not heard. Women as a whole are overshadowed by the men in Colors, forced into submissive roles and are easily dominated by the men in their lives. The natural progression from race and gender issues in Colors is towards the interconnection of race and sexuality throughout the film. Just as there was a hierarchy in gender, there too is a hierarchy of the races in regards to sexuality. White men and women are, once again, the socially accepted ideal with Black/Latino men and Black women at the complete end opposite of the spectrum, being hypersexual and wildly masculine, thus leaving Latina women trapped in the middle, varying their degree towards either side depending on the circumstances. To show the severe contrast in white and black sexuality, two scenes in Colors will be juxtaposed against one another. The first is the sex scene between McGavin and Louisa (Maria Conchita Alonso), which is a sensual, quiet, and affectionate scene, making sure to show the emotional connection between the two with a deep gaze into each others eyes. While Louisa is nude, bearing her humble breasts to the camera, McGavin is partially covered by a sheet with only his back shown bare. It is the ideal romantic and modest lovemaking scene, which represents the most desirable sexuality, the white sexuality. In severe contrast to this is a sex scene between a young Black man and woman as policemen raid their house in the middle of the day. The two are unrestrictedly loud and completely nude, fully showing the womans ample breasts and the mans backside. Sweat covers the two of them as they engage in animalistic, savage, almost violent sex. After the misjudgment of an officer, the Black man is shot and the woman looses control; ferociously crouched on the bed, covered only by her untamed hair, she starts screaming profanities at the officers for killing her adulterous lover. This scene represents the
antithesis of the white sexuality; it represents both the hypersexual, animalistic nature of Black people as an entirety, and the severe masculinity and aggressiveness of Black women, who are never allowed to stray too far into the foreign feminine realm. This graphic scene is then, once again, sharply contrasted with another shot directly following, in which a tall, slender, attractive white woman is arrested from the neighboring house, which was inhabited by fleeing gang members. The woman is fully nude, bearing all to the camera; although she is handcuffed and submissive, there is a slight air of seduction emitting from her. The shot lingers on her then cuts to McGavins face to which it is obvious that he recognizes her as the ideal of sexuality, femininity, and physical beauty. Juxtaposed to the explicit scene just prior, it is obvious that white femininity reigns over all other women, primarily Black women. Lest not forget about Latina womens sexuality in the film, which relies almost exclusively on Louisa, whose sexuality varies between two dualities: that of the China Doll and the Dragon Lady. Initially, Louisa takes on the role of the China Doll; she is the sexpot waitress that McGavin is lusting after and with whom has passionate and romantic sex with. She appears to be very wholesome and domestically inclined yet restraining her fervent sexuality at the same time. Hodges warned McGavin earlier of her inherent, more sinister, side when he said, "Better treat her right or her Mexican mamas gonna chop it off." After McGavin wrongs her cousin, Louisa tragically falls from grace and transforms into the Dragon Lady, flaunting her sexual prowess in his face, and emasculating him in front of her peers and his fellow officers. When she chases him, screaming, "Look at me! This is what you want, but you only want it one way... This is me, too," she is acknowledging that there are two dichotomies to her sexuality allowing
her skate between the white ideal and the repugnant black sexuality whenever she chooses. As a result of the numerous undesirable traits that are attached to Latinos and Blacks, an all-encompassing discourse is developed by whites to rationalize why ,,they, the other, act in certain ways. The root of these insufferable traits then become Black and Latinos ,,bad culture, and it is this cultural inadequacy that is the cause of their failure to leave the ghetto and the gangs behind and achieve the American Dream. This discourse of enlightened racism is promoted in the film during a community board meeting in which infuriated parents and residents are scolding board members about their inferior quality of life. The board spokesmen explains that the youths of the neighborhood are socialized by observing the drug dealers and gang members that have constant supplies of cars, money, and women and subsequently develop values that adhere to the lifestyle. One Black spokesman asserts, "Its the values that they respect. We dont educate them, we dont give them jobs..." to which a livid Black man responds, "Man, we know all that, what are we supposed to do?" As disorder erupts within the congregation, the second spokesman asks into the microphone, "Sir, do you know where your kids are right now?" and the auditorium bursts into mayhem. While this scene was intended to alleviate some of the confusion concerning why minority youths are so captivated with gang life, it only succeeded in perpetuating the arguments behind the enlightened racism ideology. For mainstream America to hear from the ,,mouths of poor Black people themselves, that they acknowledge their failure to achieve the American Dream as a direct result of their cultural upbringings, solidifies the convoluted notion of fair and equal opportunity within our society and faults only the individuals who fail to rise above.
Colors was intended, and perceived, to be an extremely progressive film that accurately represented gang life, perhaps as a means of understanding the complexities that poor minorities face and to dispel some of the mysticism behind ,,their culture. What resulted, however, was a film that was embraced by white mainstream America as the tell-all tale of Black and Latinos bad heritage that reinforced commonly held judgments regarding the racialized hierarchies of gender and sexuality, as well as perpetuating, if not strengthening, the ideology of enlightened racism. The progress of this film was not towards its desired direction, instead it worked to further popular discourse of minorities towards a more camouflaged version of racial differentiation one that is harder to recognize and harder to maneuver.