Shonda Rhimes, along with her cast and much of the Internet, wasn't too happy on Friday when the New York Times TV Critic called the TV legend an "angry black woman."
Allesandra Stanley's article from Thursday takes a stab at Rhimes' new series "How To Get Away With Murder," opening her piece with: "When Shonda Rhimes writes her autobiography, it should be called 'How to Get Away With Being an Angry Black Woman.'" Ouch. Stanley goes on to discuss Rhimes' supposed "set of heroines who flout ingrained television conventions and preconceived notions about the depiction of diversity" and other black women on TV.
Let's just say, Rhimes wasn't too pleased with it and shared some of her thoughts over Twitter:
Joshua Malina of "Scandal" also chimed in:
Meanwhile, Kerry Washington decided to share some of the many thinkpieces in response to Stanley's article:
Willa Paskin over at Slate quickly jumped to defend Rhimes' many achievements when it comes to television and black female characters. "Rhimes is no more the 'angry black woman' than her characters," Paskin writes, "who are angry the way that a bird is bipedal: It’s not false, but it’s not to the point." The critic went on break down Rhimes' female characters and praise how the creator has "re-framed the stereotype of the 'angry black woman'" by carving out a space for black females on TV.
At Vox, Alex Abad-Santos calls to light that Stanley constantly refers to Rhimes when discussing "HTGAWM" in her essay -- Rhimes isn't even the creator of the new series, she's one of the executive producers. Abad-Santos writes, "the piece refers to Rhimes 19 times and has only one mention of [Pete] Nowalk," creator of "HTGAWM." Rhimes also found this puzzling:
Over at Vulture, Margaret Lyons called the NY Times essay "inaccurate, tone-deaf, muddled, and racist." Lyons notes a selection of obviously angry Rhimes characters (Mellie, Cyrus, etc.) who Stanley fails to mention. "What's the difference between a rant and a monologue? Sometimes just the race of the person delivering it," Lyons writes. She ends her response piece by hypothetically assuming that even if Stanley's assessment were correct, there's still a flaw: "Is there anything in this article in particular that suggests any of these characters are based at all on Shonda Rhimes?," Lyons questions. "There is not."
From now on, when trying to take down a beloved and powerful producer, it may be best to not totally associate the creator --or executive producer-- with their shows' characters, or more specifically, with characters of one race.
Allesandra Stanley's article from Thursday takes a stab at Rhimes' new series "How To Get Away With Murder," opening her piece with: "When Shonda Rhimes writes her autobiography, it should be called 'How to Get Away With Being an Angry Black Woman.'" Ouch. Stanley goes on to discuss Rhimes' supposed "set of heroines who flout ingrained television conventions and preconceived notions about the depiction of diversity" and other black women on TV.
Let's just say, Rhimes wasn't too pleased with it and shared some of her thoughts over Twitter:
Wait. I'm" angry" AND a ROMANCE WRITER?!! I'm going to need to put down the internet and go dance this one out. Because ish is getting real.
— shonda rhimes (@shondarhimes) September 19, 2014 Joshua Malina of "Scandal" also chimed in:
Wow. Did I just read a @nytimes piece that reduced my brilliant, creative, compassionate, thoughtful, badass boss to an “angry black woman?”
— Joshua Malina (@JoshMalina) September 19, 2014 Meanwhile, Kerry Washington decided to share some of the many thinkpieces in response to Stanley's article:
Dear @nytimes
http://t.co/20dzCSLKsx
AND
http://t.co/VJQ7n0Ujdn
You're welcome.
Love,
K-Dub
— kerry washington (@kerrywashington) September 19, 2014 Willa Paskin over at Slate quickly jumped to defend Rhimes' many achievements when it comes to television and black female characters. "Rhimes is no more the 'angry black woman' than her characters," Paskin writes, "who are angry the way that a bird is bipedal: It’s not false, but it’s not to the point." The critic went on break down Rhimes' female characters and praise how the creator has "re-framed the stereotype of the 'angry black woman'" by carving out a space for black females on TV.
At Vox, Alex Abad-Santos calls to light that Stanley constantly refers to Rhimes when discussing "HTGAWM" in her essay -- Rhimes isn't even the creator of the new series, she's one of the executive producers. Abad-Santos writes, "the piece refers to Rhimes 19 times and has only one mention of [Pete] Nowalk," creator of "HTGAWM." Rhimes also found this puzzling:
Confused why @nytimes critic doesn't know identity of CREATOR of show she's reviewing. @petenowa did u know u were "an angry black woman"?
— shonda rhimes (@shondarhimes) September 19, 2014 Over at Vulture, Margaret Lyons called the NY Times essay "inaccurate, tone-deaf, muddled, and racist." Lyons notes a selection of obviously angry Rhimes characters (Mellie, Cyrus, etc.) who Stanley fails to mention. "What's the difference between a rant and a monologue? Sometimes just the race of the person delivering it," Lyons writes. She ends her response piece by hypothetically assuming that even if Stanley's assessment were correct, there's still a flaw: "Is there anything in this article in particular that suggests any of these characters are based at all on Shonda Rhimes?," Lyons questions. "There is not."
From now on, when trying to take down a beloved and powerful producer, it may be best to not totally associate the creator --or executive producer-- with their shows' characters, or more specifically, with characters of one race.
No comments:
Post a Comment