This movie, when first watched by people from my generation (Gen X), doesn't seem to be very coherent. Something strange and psychedelic from a weird era. However, if you watch this movie and then watch How to Get the Man's Foot Outta Your Ass, which is a movie about making Sweet Sweetback, you'll see why this was so damn revolutionary. This was the first time Black America told White America on screen that the days of "kissing up to Shirley Temple's ass" were over. It was a political movie about Black America and even Minority America being tired of whiteness, as well as stating that Black America now has its own identity and society. It took some pretty strong courage to make this move when you consider the time frame that it came out in; the early seventies, a period that saw a shift from "I have a dream" to "By any means necessary." I believe this film opened the doors to allow black artistic media to be critical about white America, society, politics and corruption that generally would have been censored before. Sometimes I wonder if this helped pave the way for people like Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy and even Dave Chapelle. My father, a white man, told me that when he went to see this film back in 1971, the audience screamed and cheered during the opening scene when across the screen it read to "all the Brothers and Sisters who are tired of being held down by the Man." Nowadays people wouldn't really respond to that, not even black society I don't think, but back then it could have gotten you lynched, even in 1971. So when people screamed and cheered in the movie theater when they saw this, I think you can imagine how important a film like this must be in film history. No minority had ever dared to say that on the silver screen before.
64 Reviews
A must-see for fans of weirdness!
BrandtSponseller14 February 2005
Considered the first blaxploitation film, Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song features Melvin Van Peebles (who also directed, wrote, produced, edited and did music for the film) as Sweetback, a Los Angeles-area "male prostitute"/"sex performer" (who only has relations with females). He agrees to be taken in to a police station as a suspect just to make a couple cops look good (because they are tolerant towards the cathouse he lives in). On the way, they pick up a Black Panther and start beating him senseless. Sweetback bludgeons and stabs the two cops with his handcuffs (one end is open) and the bulk of the film has him on the run. Can he make it to Mexico before he's caught?
Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song has a lot of historical significance. It is an early independent film in what's considered the current "modern" style, it is one of the earliest mostly black films of its era (there were all black films earlier, such as Oscar Micheaux's work, but they disappeared for awhile), it was controversial (it initially earned an X rating (later changed to an R) and touted that fact proudly as a tagline), it was made for $150 thousand but grossed $15 million, and most importantly perhaps for some film lovers, it is credited with starting the blaxploitation craze in the 1970s. It is worth watching for students of film on those merits alone.
But none of those facts alone make it a good film, and none affect my rating. In terms of quality, Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song gets my vaunted 5 out of 10 rating, which is usually reserved for "so bad they're good" films. Although it is loaded with flaws, as one might expect from a low budget film from the era shot guerilla-style on the streets of Los Angeles, it is a hoot to watch. On the weirdness scale, it definitely earns a 10.
Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song is firmly mired in the psychedelic era. Peebles gives us frequent shots with negative or false colors near the beginning of the film. More frequently, he directs scenes so they have various "altered reality" allusions--time stretching, repeating, stopping and stuttering, bizarre actions and reactions from various characters, rambling nonsense, and so on--which for the viewer approximate the perception of someone who is wasted almost to the point of passing out. These scenes often play like some kind of avant-garde performance art, and are as much a focus of the film as any of the usually cited "political" messages rooted in racially oriented turmoil and disparity. Perhaps the intended theme was that race relations, and the urban reality of blacks to that point were as bizarre as acid trips, some good, some bad.
The music is equally bizarre (which I love), with a recurrent jazz/funk piece with an almost atonal saxophone melody being the unifier. Some of the vocal music is a veritable Greek chorus, narrating action and emotions, providing critiques and so on. Peebles also frequently layers musical tracks, so two or more can be playing at once for a minute or two.
The film is also notable and admirable for its abundance of almost graphic sex scenes and gratuitous nudity. The opening scene is particularly groundbreaking and laudable. Throughout the film, Sweetback is an unstoppable stud, with almost any woman he desires dropping her drawers for him, even towards the end of the film, despite the fact that he has an oozing, infected sore running up the side of his body, not to mention that he's filthy, and he's been drinking mud and eating raw lizards. The ladies still find him hot enough to give him a poke in the bushes. We need much more of this kind of material in contemporary films.
At one point, Peebles and/or director of photography Robert Maxwell appear to have hit the streets of Los Angeles, filming people at random after they asked them if they've seen Sweetback (the character). These shots are inserted into the extended chase scene near the end of the film (2/3 to 3/4 of the film is actually an extended chase scene). The effect is a lot of fun to watch--definitely guerilla film-making at its finest.
But the problems with the film are legion. Maxwell's camera frequently goes in and out of focus (being generous, we could interpret it with psychedelic intent, but I'm skeptical). Night scenes (which are thankfully avoided for the most part) tend to be seas of blackness where a viewer can only occasionally make out enough of an image to piece together the scene in their mind. The sound is awful--I couldn't make out about half of the dialogue (at one point I thought "this is more like watching a silent film"), and it doesn't help that some characters "jive talk"; if ever a film needed subtitles, it's this one. The camera occasionally has a spot, a hair, or some other gunk on the lens. There isn't much to the story; after awhile, it starts to play more like an odd music video. A lot of shots--scenery, cityscapes, etc.--look like they may have been randomly taken by Peebles with his home camera with the hopes of one day using them in a film.
Still, for fans of weirdness and "so bad they're good" films, not to mention any blaxploitation fan with his or her weight in barbecued ribs, Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song is a must see. Make sure you also check out How to Get the Man's Foot Outta Your Ass (aka Baadasssss!), Peebles' son Mario's 2003 film about Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song.
Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song has a lot of historical significance. It is an early independent film in what's considered the current "modern" style, it is one of the earliest mostly black films of its era (there were all black films earlier, such as Oscar Micheaux's work, but they disappeared for awhile), it was controversial (it initially earned an X rating (later changed to an R) and touted that fact proudly as a tagline), it was made for $150 thousand but grossed $15 million, and most importantly perhaps for some film lovers, it is credited with starting the blaxploitation craze in the 1970s. It is worth watching for students of film on those merits alone.
But none of those facts alone make it a good film, and none affect my rating. In terms of quality, Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song gets my vaunted 5 out of 10 rating, which is usually reserved for "so bad they're good" films. Although it is loaded with flaws, as one might expect from a low budget film from the era shot guerilla-style on the streets of Los Angeles, it is a hoot to watch. On the weirdness scale, it definitely earns a 10.
Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song is firmly mired in the psychedelic era. Peebles gives us frequent shots with negative or false colors near the beginning of the film. More frequently, he directs scenes so they have various "altered reality" allusions--time stretching, repeating, stopping and stuttering, bizarre actions and reactions from various characters, rambling nonsense, and so on--which for the viewer approximate the perception of someone who is wasted almost to the point of passing out. These scenes often play like some kind of avant-garde performance art, and are as much a focus of the film as any of the usually cited "political" messages rooted in racially oriented turmoil and disparity. Perhaps the intended theme was that race relations, and the urban reality of blacks to that point were as bizarre as acid trips, some good, some bad.
The music is equally bizarre (which I love), with a recurrent jazz/funk piece with an almost atonal saxophone melody being the unifier. Some of the vocal music is a veritable Greek chorus, narrating action and emotions, providing critiques and so on. Peebles also frequently layers musical tracks, so two or more can be playing at once for a minute or two.
The film is also notable and admirable for its abundance of almost graphic sex scenes and gratuitous nudity. The opening scene is particularly groundbreaking and laudable. Throughout the film, Sweetback is an unstoppable stud, with almost any woman he desires dropping her drawers for him, even towards the end of the film, despite the fact that he has an oozing, infected sore running up the side of his body, not to mention that he's filthy, and he's been drinking mud and eating raw lizards. The ladies still find him hot enough to give him a poke in the bushes. We need much more of this kind of material in contemporary films.
At one point, Peebles and/or director of photography Robert Maxwell appear to have hit the streets of Los Angeles, filming people at random after they asked them if they've seen Sweetback (the character). These shots are inserted into the extended chase scene near the end of the film (2/3 to 3/4 of the film is actually an extended chase scene). The effect is a lot of fun to watch--definitely guerilla film-making at its finest.
But the problems with the film are legion. Maxwell's camera frequently goes in and out of focus (being generous, we could interpret it with psychedelic intent, but I'm skeptical). Night scenes (which are thankfully avoided for the most part) tend to be seas of blackness where a viewer can only occasionally make out enough of an image to piece together the scene in their mind. The sound is awful--I couldn't make out about half of the dialogue (at one point I thought "this is more like watching a silent film"), and it doesn't help that some characters "jive talk"; if ever a film needed subtitles, it's this one. The camera occasionally has a spot, a hair, or some other gunk on the lens. There isn't much to the story; after awhile, it starts to play more like an odd music video. A lot of shots--scenery, cityscapes, etc.--look like they may have been randomly taken by Peebles with his home camera with the hopes of one day using them in a film.
Still, for fans of weirdness and "so bad they're good" films, not to mention any blaxploitation fan with his or her weight in barbecued ribs, Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song is a must see. Make sure you also check out How to Get the Man's Foot Outta Your Ass (aka Baadasssss!), Peebles' son Mario's 2003 film about Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song.
And you thought it took forever to get back into CA from TJ.....
twostpr4123 March 2009
...it takes just as long the other way around in this movie. I have a lot of respect for what this film represented to people in '71. And I celebrate what it did to pave the way for the ideals that changed this country and, I hope, are still changing it for the better. The black revolution in film, which I believe this must have been nearly the first of it's kind to be pretty widely distributed concerning the "brothers and sisters who had enough of the man," is to be honored.
However, I found this film to be almost unwatchable. Almost.
I can't help it. I was uneasy and twitchy the whole time. The 60'ish style of almost constant repetitive music, dialogue, and visual, made me feel like I was tripping out. And I assure you that I was not. I wanted to kick the skipping jukebox. I wanted to shout, "O.K.! I get it! Just get on with it ! FOR GOD'S SAKE LETS GO!!!" It takes some patience and sticktoitofness...but the message is clear and you'd better watch your back cracker... cuz he's coming for you!
However, I found this film to be almost unwatchable. Almost.
I can't help it. I was uneasy and twitchy the whole time. The 60'ish style of almost constant repetitive music, dialogue, and visual, made me feel like I was tripping out. And I assure you that I was not. I wanted to kick the skipping jukebox. I wanted to shout, "O.K.! I get it! Just get on with it ! FOR GOD'S SAKE LETS GO!!!" It takes some patience and sticktoitofness...but the message is clear and you'd better watch your back cracker... cuz he's coming for you!
The absolute beginning of a real "black" presence.
fereeves3 September 2001
I saw this movie in Boulder CO in 1971 in an audience that was half black and half white in a community in the mountains that was 99.4% white. Blacks in the audience obviously got the raucous humor only the blacks could get living in America...the white's didn't have a clue. As a Welfare Rights Organizer at the time i obviously identified with the black situation. This was the FIRST movie from the black point of view.
Von Peebles is to be commended for doing the impossible and i have used his example of forbearance and excellance for the past three decades. He had been in Europe for ten years prior to the film. He wanted to do the film. He didn't have the money. No one wanted to write it. He wrote it. Black actors of stature didn't want to be associated with it. He stars in it. He gets the financial backing. He gets an "X" rating because he would not have it submitted for a rating and because the only venue he could get was the "X" rated theatres. He still out grossed Easy Rider, which was the big history maker of low budget big return films.
Von Peebles was the first black man to tell it like it was at the time... and he blasted the black myths on and off the screen.
Von Peebles is to be commended for doing the impossible and i have used his example of forbearance and excellance for the past three decades. He had been in Europe for ten years prior to the film. He wanted to do the film. He didn't have the money. No one wanted to write it. He wrote it. Black actors of stature didn't want to be associated with it. He stars in it. He gets the financial backing. He gets an "X" rating because he would not have it submitted for a rating and because the only venue he could get was the "X" rated theatres. He still out grossed Easy Rider, which was the big history maker of low budget big return films.
Von Peebles was the first black man to tell it like it was at the time... and he blasted the black myths on and off the screen.
Very raw but made with attitude
Red-Barracuda14 February 2014
Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song is a film whose reputation is based almost entirely on its historical importance. When I finally saw it after hearing a lot about it for many years, I was somewhat alarmed at just how amateurish it in actual fact was. This isn't a problem in and of itself but it was a bit surprising how raw it was given its fame and reputation. Director and star Melvin Van Peebles was nothing if not a visionary though, as this was the first film to tap into the African American audience in quite this way. He created a new type of black hero; one that was aggressive and sexually threatening. And one that we are in no doubt is at odds with white authority. Unsurprisingly, this film was made way outside of the mainstream but it turned a pretty big profit from its small budget. As is always the way, other film-makers took note – including Hollywood – and a plethora of exploitation movies were made aimed squarely at this significant African American audience. And with that the Blaxploitation sub-genre was born.
The basic story-line is really simple. A sex show performer called Sweetback kills a couple of cops who are beating up a fellow black man and then goes on the run through South Central L.A. on his way to the Mexican border. It's really the locations, people and authenticity that make it interesting though. The run down sections of L.A. in particular are great time-capsule stuff and give us a peek into a time and place where the streets really did look mean. Overall, the film is an interesting look at the black experience in the early 70's ghettos. It does give out its message pretty clearly about the repression of the black man in a white controlled culture. Its defiant stance must've struck a chord with its audience, as Sweetback is never portrayed as the criminal – it's the police who are regarded as such, so it subverts the whole crime genre in this way. While it may be right-on about race, it's not so enlightened about sexual politics however. The women in the film seem to only exist for Sweetback to have sex with, while the often reported fact that Van Peebles was really having sex on film in these scenes is just too sleazy for me.
This is definitely a landmark movie, though, there is no doubt about that. But I would have to label it important but not that good. The reason I score it fairly high though is that, despite its many film-making short-comings it does have a relentless energy and the rawness of the production does in fact work in its favour at least to some extent. The crazed montage heavy editing keeps up the intensity and is even pretty experimental in approach a lot of the time, while the grimy locations and unusual characters possess an authenticity that serves it well. And underscoring it is a soundtrack of urgent urban funk that sets the scene extremely well. This latter factor was often the best thing about some of the later Blaxploitation movies in actual fact and remains one of the things that best defines them today. So, in summary, while this film isn't very good in a number of ways, it has enough attitude about it to raise it several rungs.
The basic story-line is really simple. A sex show performer called Sweetback kills a couple of cops who are beating up a fellow black man and then goes on the run through South Central L.A. on his way to the Mexican border. It's really the locations, people and authenticity that make it interesting though. The run down sections of L.A. in particular are great time-capsule stuff and give us a peek into a time and place where the streets really did look mean. Overall, the film is an interesting look at the black experience in the early 70's ghettos. It does give out its message pretty clearly about the repression of the black man in a white controlled culture. Its defiant stance must've struck a chord with its audience, as Sweetback is never portrayed as the criminal – it's the police who are regarded as such, so it subverts the whole crime genre in this way. While it may be right-on about race, it's not so enlightened about sexual politics however. The women in the film seem to only exist for Sweetback to have sex with, while the often reported fact that Van Peebles was really having sex on film in these scenes is just too sleazy for me.
This is definitely a landmark movie, though, there is no doubt about that. But I would have to label it important but not that good. The reason I score it fairly high though is that, despite its many film-making short-comings it does have a relentless energy and the rawness of the production does in fact work in its favour at least to some extent. The crazed montage heavy editing keeps up the intensity and is even pretty experimental in approach a lot of the time, while the grimy locations and unusual characters possess an authenticity that serves it well. And underscoring it is a soundtrack of urgent urban funk that sets the scene extremely well. This latter factor was often the best thing about some of the later Blaxploitation movies in actual fact and remains one of the things that best defines them today. So, in summary, while this film isn't very good in a number of ways, it has enough attitude about it to raise it several rungs.
Perhaps it's an important film, but it really, really sucks...and that might be the nicest thing I can say about this film.
planktonrules28 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This film, according to IMDb, is the first blaxploitation film. However, unlike the second ("Shaft"), this one is super-super low-budget and is a major chore to watch. That's because, quite frankly, the film is rougher and less polished than even the earliest John Waters film. In fact, there's almost nothing positive I can say about the movie--and it's light-years worse than the worst thing Ed Wood ever produced! Yes, folks, it's that bad! And, after having seen several dozen films in the genre, I think I have some idea what I'm talking about in this review. I've seen Mexican Mummy and Luchador films and "Sweet Sweetback" is SIGNIFICANTLY worse!
Let's talk about the cinematography...if you can even call it that. It's obvious that the cameraman tried to be adventurous and arty, but it ended up looking horrid. The film stock appeared to be, at best, 16mm and it was very, very grainy. The edits, it appears, were done by Ray Charles. I have never seen a more amateurish bit of camera-work--and I've reviewed over 8000 movies!
As for the acting...oh, the horror! Melvin Van Peebles says almost nothing and does almost nothing in the film--like it is a zombie film. Most people under anesthesia emote more than he did! The only thing close to acting that he seemed to do was have sex repeatedly--with very unattractive women. I assume most of his budget went to hire ugly prostitutes for these scenes. The rest of the actors were also horrible...but at least they were more animated and interesting that this writer/director/actor. He simply sleep-walked throughout the film.
Speaking of nude scenes, the film begins with a bit of child pornography. Mario Van Peebles, the way underage son of the director, engages in a very, very realistic sex act with a woman of about 30 years of age. They are both VERY naked and he appears to he having intercourse with her. How the film maker got away with this legally is beyond me. I assume Melvin was motivated by heroin or battery acid or a massive head injury which allowed him to make such an irresponsible scene.
As far as the plot goes, this could have been good...but wasn't. Plus, all too often, the plot was buried among sleaze. The first 10 minutes of the film consisted of having Melvin having sex in front of groups of people. You assume he's some sort of prostitute and he's about as far from Shaft (perhaps a bad choice) or Hammer or the other black heroes of the 70s as you can get. Eventually, the police arrest him and some other innocent man and start working the other guy over even though they know neither had anything to do with a crime--and the cops even admit this! They randomly picked a couple black men to beat up just to make the chief happy! But, while they are pummeling the other man, Melvin turns on them and beats the crap out of them. The rest of the film consists of the cops trying to catch him.
I am sure this was very satisfying for black audiences of the day, as they were probably very well acquainted with police brutality (a national sport up until the late 1960s) and Van Peebles was capitalizing on this resentment. But, with so many more competent blaxsploitation films out there, I suggest you try them first. In fact ANY other film of the genre is better than this film. In fact, ANY film is better than this one. In fact, staring as a toilet for 90 minutes is better...the film is that bad! Just because it's first doesn't mean it's best. It's horribly incompetent and looks like a film made by crack-heads. And, when you watch the director on the accompanying DVD extra, you assume this was the case.
Let's talk about the cinematography...if you can even call it that. It's obvious that the cameraman tried to be adventurous and arty, but it ended up looking horrid. The film stock appeared to be, at best, 16mm and it was very, very grainy. The edits, it appears, were done by Ray Charles. I have never seen a more amateurish bit of camera-work--and I've reviewed over 8000 movies!
As for the acting...oh, the horror! Melvin Van Peebles says almost nothing and does almost nothing in the film--like it is a zombie film. Most people under anesthesia emote more than he did! The only thing close to acting that he seemed to do was have sex repeatedly--with very unattractive women. I assume most of his budget went to hire ugly prostitutes for these scenes. The rest of the actors were also horrible...but at least they were more animated and interesting that this writer/director/actor. He simply sleep-walked throughout the film.
Speaking of nude scenes, the film begins with a bit of child pornography. Mario Van Peebles, the way underage son of the director, engages in a very, very realistic sex act with a woman of about 30 years of age. They are both VERY naked and he appears to he having intercourse with her. How the film maker got away with this legally is beyond me. I assume Melvin was motivated by heroin or battery acid or a massive head injury which allowed him to make such an irresponsible scene.
As far as the plot goes, this could have been good...but wasn't. Plus, all too often, the plot was buried among sleaze. The first 10 minutes of the film consisted of having Melvin having sex in front of groups of people. You assume he's some sort of prostitute and he's about as far from Shaft (perhaps a bad choice) or Hammer or the other black heroes of the 70s as you can get. Eventually, the police arrest him and some other innocent man and start working the other guy over even though they know neither had anything to do with a crime--and the cops even admit this! They randomly picked a couple black men to beat up just to make the chief happy! But, while they are pummeling the other man, Melvin turns on them and beats the crap out of them. The rest of the film consists of the cops trying to catch him.
I am sure this was very satisfying for black audiences of the day, as they were probably very well acquainted with police brutality (a national sport up until the late 1960s) and Van Peebles was capitalizing on this resentment. But, with so many more competent blaxsploitation films out there, I suggest you try them first. In fact ANY other film of the genre is better than this film. In fact, ANY film is better than this one. In fact, staring as a toilet for 90 minutes is better...the film is that bad! Just because it's first doesn't mean it's best. It's horribly incompetent and looks like a film made by crack-heads. And, when you watch the director on the accompanying DVD extra, you assume this was the case.
what it lacks in technical prowess and cohesion it makes up for with a raw energy to be found only in the ground-breakers
Quinoa198426 April 2007
Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song is Melvin Van Peebles harsh, incisive, intentional baffling and revolutionary take on the black experience in America. It isn't that, exactly, but it gets down the how "the Man" keeps the black community down at every turn they can. To be sure, this was the first of what was called 'black-exploitation' films, but it isn't exactly that either. Sure, it shows the film's hero (and believe you-me, Van Peebles IS a bad-ass hero, at least in some circles) having sex with a LOT of women, mostly black and some white thrown in at random moments, and it has a completely one-sided view on the Caucasian presence in America (either rabidly racist and crooked cops, or women with a 'craving' for the Sweetback, and the occasional bikers). But it also intends to be a movie by black people, of black people, and FOR black people, to make what is intended as a statement on not just the image of African Americans in the country at the time, but what wasn't shown in movies at all.
In this latter sense, Van Peebles is making an attempt, much like Godard did with his early films (particularly Breathless and My Life to Live), to break through and re-configure conventions into something that is kind of f***ed up, but is alive and interesting in ways that more expensive or resourceful movies would have. Peebles makes his movies sort of out of junk-yard avant-garde parts, like some kind of garish vision taken in via superimpositions, montages, and a soundtrack as a combination of great Earth, Wind and Fire songs and a collage of voice-overs during Sweetback's run. Now, if looking at it from a purely objective viewpoint, of how it is technically, it's a little all over the place and, of course, totally dated. Peebles is also so intense with his camera- and rightfully so- that he lets his script sort of go into a better lack of focus; a lot of the time I only had a slight understanding of what was going on, and sometimes just not at all.
This being said, it's a tremendous credit to Peebles as an independent filmmaker that the film even got finished; he had many production difficulties, as later chronicled in the film Bad Asssss. It's a very rough movie, with scenes going very much into the realm of pornography (even though, unlike most pornos of the period, it doesn't go for the jugular with its angles and shots- if anything Peebles is a little inert as a lover). All the same, it has a lot that pops out as striking, not just in its rambling assortment of visuals, which combine location shots of urban sprawl, deserts, and industrial areas, with the very real, un-glamorized faces of those in the 'ghetto', but in the subject matter as well. It is sensationalized for cinematic effect, but the point still remains today, and is quite ideal as Peebles's most notoriously crazy and weirdly exciting effort.
In this latter sense, Van Peebles is making an attempt, much like Godard did with his early films (particularly Breathless and My Life to Live), to break through and re-configure conventions into something that is kind of f***ed up, but is alive and interesting in ways that more expensive or resourceful movies would have. Peebles makes his movies sort of out of junk-yard avant-garde parts, like some kind of garish vision taken in via superimpositions, montages, and a soundtrack as a combination of great Earth, Wind and Fire songs and a collage of voice-overs during Sweetback's run. Now, if looking at it from a purely objective viewpoint, of how it is technically, it's a little all over the place and, of course, totally dated. Peebles is also so intense with his camera- and rightfully so- that he lets his script sort of go into a better lack of focus; a lot of the time I only had a slight understanding of what was going on, and sometimes just not at all.
This being said, it's a tremendous credit to Peebles as an independent filmmaker that the film even got finished; he had many production difficulties, as later chronicled in the film Bad Asssss. It's a very rough movie, with scenes going very much into the realm of pornography (even though, unlike most pornos of the period, it doesn't go for the jugular with its angles and shots- if anything Peebles is a little inert as a lover). All the same, it has a lot that pops out as striking, not just in its rambling assortment of visuals, which combine location shots of urban sprawl, deserts, and industrial areas, with the very real, un-glamorized faces of those in the 'ghetto', but in the subject matter as well. It is sensationalized for cinematic effect, but the point still remains today, and is quite ideal as Peebles's most notoriously crazy and weirdly exciting effort.
Maybe I'm too old, maybe I'm not old enough. Maybe I just can't dig it, baby. I can't get down with the funk.
Anonymous_Maxine11 November 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Whatever the case, Sweet Sweetback's Baad Assssssss Song came off to me as a vibrant exercise in bad taste, bad acting, a barely discernible plot, VERY bad editing, and lots of stupid, stupid white people. The opening feeding scene, the one with the whole crowd of women inexplicably overflowing with lust from watching a dirty kid shovel food into his mouth, is reminiscent of The Hairdresser's Husband, the vastly superior French film that uses similar low-cut necklines revealing massive breasts to illustrate the formation of sexual taboos later in life. Sweet Sweetback's Baad Asssss song has no time for that. Nope. Next scene, that same dirty kid is naked and reluctantly ravishing someone that I assume is a prostitute, but who could just as easily be his babysitter, his teacher, his mother, or his sister.
Doesn't matter which one, really. Even if it was his mother it wouldn't be as tasteless as the fact that what we're looking at is a 13-year-old kid completely naked between the legs of some woman who is equally naked. I have no problem with sex scenes, of course. It just strikes me as weird to see a movie that literally shows a 13-year-old kid having sex and then the movie (Shocked! Shocked!!) gives itself a tagline like 'Rated X by an all white jury.' What the hell?
I'm reminded of a classic Saturday Night Live skit in which Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell and Chris Kattan go to a nightclub and viciously gang-hump every woman on the dance floor and then when the security guards drag them to the exit they're all screaming 'What??! What?!?! What??!??!' How do they imply that an all black jury might have rated a movie with a naked 13-year-old kid in it? PG-13?
That being said, the movie is basically about a lot of incompetent white cops constantly pursuing someone named Sweetback, who has enough connections on the streets to afford him a good deal of protection and, of course, who is generally too cool for spoken dialogue. We're brought into the dismal world of the inner cities, a plight for which the white man is endlessly blamed and, to whatever extent, this may be true, but for the most part this movie celebrates the condemnation of the white man for causing the black man to live such a terrible life, while at the same time celebrating the black man's inability or unwillingness to do anything about that life beyond blaming the white man for it.
It's a controversial theory that the black community is more interested in blaming white people for their lot in life than they are in doing something to better their situation, but this movie does absolutely nothing to refute it, which is also the case in a disturbing number of 'blaxploitation' movies. Blaxploitation itself, as a term, is wildly misleading. I suppose it means that black people are blaxploited by greedy white men, hence their dismal urban lifestyle, while white people are whitesploited by black people, hence their constant appearance as greedy, racist, and complete drooling morons in 'blaxploitation' films. Pam Grier must be rolling in her grave.
I've heard the editing described as quick to disorient the viewer, which is not the case at all. What you have here is obtrusive editing without reason, cuts simply for the sake of cutting. Like many 1970s blaxploitation films, the movie halts in its tracks half a dozen times or so to turn into a music video for a little while, but the rough and awkward editing does not disorient the viewer, it stops the movie completely because it is totally devoid of meaning. It takes your attention away from what is happening on screen and puts it into the weird colors and shapes dancing across the screen, which have nothing to do with whatever the meaning of the movie is. This is not how you infuse a deep meaning or directorial significance onto a cheesy sexy movie, this is how you make a feature length film when you don't have enough story or material to fill that much screen time. Sometimes lines of dialogue are literally played over more than once. The need for such things escapes me.
In the movie's defense, it is very good at capturing the urban atmosphere in which the story takes place. When you watch the movie, you are there on the streets with the characters, you just have a hard time trying to follow what they're doing, what they're talking about, who's chasing who and why a black man is dancing on a stool while some idiot white guy stands directly behind him, staring at his backside and laughing hysterically. Wow.
The street life is portrayed very effectively, you see how bad it is to live in these areas, but then you have to wonder about the suffering when you see scenes like the one where Sweetback is forced by a gang of hysterical bikers to endure the unending torture of making love to a white woman while they all sit around laughing. What the hell is going on here?
(spoilers) Maybe I just made the mistake of watching Dirty Pretty Things just before seeing this, so I came into this movie having just watched a movie that squeezes in the sex and violence because they are necessary elements of the massive plot, while this movie stretches out the sex scenes and throws in random bits of plot here and there just to fill out the rest of the screen time. There literally is a point in the movie where Sweetback is running from the cops through the desert, becomes so decimated that he kills and eats a lizard, and then when he reaches civilization he stops to have sex with a prostitute in the dirt and have a couple of white cops stop by to giggle at him.
And not only that, if you make it through the movie you are not rewarded with the delivery of some message or cinematic meaning, you are literally rewarded with a series of shots showing a couple of dead dogs floating in a river. This normally is a figure of speech, but this is some of the stupidest s**t I've ever seen.
Here's something to consider – at one point in the movie the white cops chase and capture Sweetback, but wait! He turns out to be just some guy, not Sweetback at all! The guy gleefully explains that he was paid $5 by some guy to run from whoever chased him, and it just happened to be the police but hey! It's five DOLLARS! So the cops don't do a thing at all to this guy, even though he willfully evaded the police. I guess if you're paid to run then it's okay? The thing that really gets me is that white people are portrayed as so stupid and incompetent and endlessly idiotic in these movies, and yet at the same time they are the people who's power and influence black people simply cannot escape.
Given that, here's my question for you - Who do blaxploitation films really make look foolish in the end? Oh, and yes I realize that Pam Grier is alive and well. Thanks for reading all the way to the end of my review...
Doesn't matter which one, really. Even if it was his mother it wouldn't be as tasteless as the fact that what we're looking at is a 13-year-old kid completely naked between the legs of some woman who is equally naked. I have no problem with sex scenes, of course. It just strikes me as weird to see a movie that literally shows a 13-year-old kid having sex and then the movie (Shocked! Shocked!!) gives itself a tagline like 'Rated X by an all white jury.' What the hell?
I'm reminded of a classic Saturday Night Live skit in which Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell and Chris Kattan go to a nightclub and viciously gang-hump every woman on the dance floor and then when the security guards drag them to the exit they're all screaming 'What??! What?!?! What??!??!' How do they imply that an all black jury might have rated a movie with a naked 13-year-old kid in it? PG-13?
That being said, the movie is basically about a lot of incompetent white cops constantly pursuing someone named Sweetback, who has enough connections on the streets to afford him a good deal of protection and, of course, who is generally too cool for spoken dialogue. We're brought into the dismal world of the inner cities, a plight for which the white man is endlessly blamed and, to whatever extent, this may be true, but for the most part this movie celebrates the condemnation of the white man for causing the black man to live such a terrible life, while at the same time celebrating the black man's inability or unwillingness to do anything about that life beyond blaming the white man for it.
It's a controversial theory that the black community is more interested in blaming white people for their lot in life than they are in doing something to better their situation, but this movie does absolutely nothing to refute it, which is also the case in a disturbing number of 'blaxploitation' movies. Blaxploitation itself, as a term, is wildly misleading. I suppose it means that black people are blaxploited by greedy white men, hence their dismal urban lifestyle, while white people are whitesploited by black people, hence their constant appearance as greedy, racist, and complete drooling morons in 'blaxploitation' films. Pam Grier must be rolling in her grave.
I've heard the editing described as quick to disorient the viewer, which is not the case at all. What you have here is obtrusive editing without reason, cuts simply for the sake of cutting. Like many 1970s blaxploitation films, the movie halts in its tracks half a dozen times or so to turn into a music video for a little while, but the rough and awkward editing does not disorient the viewer, it stops the movie completely because it is totally devoid of meaning. It takes your attention away from what is happening on screen and puts it into the weird colors and shapes dancing across the screen, which have nothing to do with whatever the meaning of the movie is. This is not how you infuse a deep meaning or directorial significance onto a cheesy sexy movie, this is how you make a feature length film when you don't have enough story or material to fill that much screen time. Sometimes lines of dialogue are literally played over more than once. The need for such things escapes me.
In the movie's defense, it is very good at capturing the urban atmosphere in which the story takes place. When you watch the movie, you are there on the streets with the characters, you just have a hard time trying to follow what they're doing, what they're talking about, who's chasing who and why a black man is dancing on a stool while some idiot white guy stands directly behind him, staring at his backside and laughing hysterically. Wow.
The street life is portrayed very effectively, you see how bad it is to live in these areas, but then you have to wonder about the suffering when you see scenes like the one where Sweetback is forced by a gang of hysterical bikers to endure the unending torture of making love to a white woman while they all sit around laughing. What the hell is going on here?
(spoilers) Maybe I just made the mistake of watching Dirty Pretty Things just before seeing this, so I came into this movie having just watched a movie that squeezes in the sex and violence because they are necessary elements of the massive plot, while this movie stretches out the sex scenes and throws in random bits of plot here and there just to fill out the rest of the screen time. There literally is a point in the movie where Sweetback is running from the cops through the desert, becomes so decimated that he kills and eats a lizard, and then when he reaches civilization he stops to have sex with a prostitute in the dirt and have a couple of white cops stop by to giggle at him.
And not only that, if you make it through the movie you are not rewarded with the delivery of some message or cinematic meaning, you are literally rewarded with a series of shots showing a couple of dead dogs floating in a river. This normally is a figure of speech, but this is some of the stupidest s**t I've ever seen.
Here's something to consider – at one point in the movie the white cops chase and capture Sweetback, but wait! He turns out to be just some guy, not Sweetback at all! The guy gleefully explains that he was paid $5 by some guy to run from whoever chased him, and it just happened to be the police but hey! It's five DOLLARS! So the cops don't do a thing at all to this guy, even though he willfully evaded the police. I guess if you're paid to run then it's okay? The thing that really gets me is that white people are portrayed as so stupid and incompetent and endlessly idiotic in these movies, and yet at the same time they are the people who's power and influence black people simply cannot escape.
Given that, here's my question for you - Who do blaxploitation films really make look foolish in the end? Oh, and yes I realize that Pam Grier is alive and well. Thanks for reading all the way to the end of my review...
The Cinema of Melvin Van Peebles.
Captain_Couth27 August 2005
Sweet Sweetback's Baad Asssss Song (1971) was a independent marvel from Melvin Van Peebles. It also influenced the so called black exploitation movement of the seventies. According to Mr. Peebles, after the surprise success of this film, the producers of SHAFT changed his character into a black man. Even beyond Hollywood, Mr. Peebles still has some creative control. Before he made this film and the small success of WATERMELON MAN, several Hollywood Studios wanted him to be a Black expert. They wanted him to doctor some scripts and make them "black" (the term he used can be found in his back about the making and selling of Sweet Sweetback's Baad Asssss Song (1971). This book is cool, it also has a lot of vital information, a script to the movie and a copy of the soundtrack.
Mr. Van Peebles used a lot of French new wave style of film making when he shot this movie. The many unique editing and camera angles can be found scattered throughout the movie. He also composed the brilliant soundtrack which also comes across as a concept album. You can listen to the movie on record! This movie was more of a statement to the White Establishment. That a black man can make a unique film without the restraints of the studio system and not have to answer to investors and anxious producers.
I have to give a hand to Mr. Van Peebles. He never gave in to the studios and make terrible sell-out projects. Like him or loathe him, you have to give him all the kudos he deserves and then some.
Highly recommended.
Mr. Van Peebles used a lot of French new wave style of film making when he shot this movie. The many unique editing and camera angles can be found scattered throughout the movie. He also composed the brilliant soundtrack which also comes across as a concept album. You can listen to the movie on record! This movie was more of a statement to the White Establishment. That a black man can make a unique film without the restraints of the studio system and not have to answer to investors and anxious producers.
I have to give a hand to Mr. Van Peebles. He never gave in to the studios and make terrible sell-out projects. Like him or loathe him, you have to give him all the kudos he deserves and then some.
Highly recommended.
Once Again, Style and Passion Trump Bland Competence
hokeybutt1 July 2005
SWEET SWEETBACK'S BAADASSSSS SONG (3+ outta 5 stars) Perhaps of more significance historically than cinematic ally, I nonetheless found this a fascinating film. It was not a widely distributed film but in the limited markets where it was shown (mostly in "black neighborhoods" I would imagine) it was a HUGE success. Watching this film now (a bizarre, disjointed "experimental" film) it's hard to imagine what audiences made of it back in the 60s. It's certainly doubtful that it would have the same impact if it came out today... but back in the 60s the very *idea* of a film centered on a black hero on the run from some less-than-perfect police officers was enough to blow peoples' minds. The movie is very a much a product of its time (lots of weird color effects and editing tricks) but I think the "dated" aspects of the film help put the audience back into that particular time and place rather than distancing them from the movie itself. It's not a perfect movie by any means but it has a strength and a style and great passion... and, in my view, that trumps bland competence.
One of the worst films ever made!
theskylabadventure22 July 2006
This is quite possibly the worst film ever made! The story behind the production and the intentions of Peebles may be inspiring, but the movie sure ain't. Sure, the backbone of it was a seriously slap in the face for the oppressive end of the white establishment which still resonates today - and rightly so. But the significant message this movie was conceived to communicate is utterly lost in an unbearably sloppy 90 minute montage of violence, running and f**king. As if that weren't poor taste enough, we even get to watch a guy taking a dump wearing only a towel - lovely.
I have no moral objection to the film, but cannot get past the fact that it is utterly incoherent from start to finish. The plot is almost non-existent, and only about a third of the screen time has anything to do with the 'story' anyway. There are random scenes that have no apparent meaning or significance whatsoever.
It looks dreadful, as if the cameraman was on speed and crack at the same time. Beyond this, the night sequences (which make up a large percentage of the film) are so dark that you literally cannot see a thing. Alas, that may be just as well, as it goes some small way to detracting from the mind-blowingly poor 'acting'. Sweetback himself just pouts and minces about, and he's the best 'character' in there. The sound is awful, often with two songs (the same two songs on a continuous loop) literally playing on top of each other.
I really wanted to like this movie, and I still acknowledge it as a milestone in American culture and social history. As a side note, it was not the first blaxploitation film as is popularly believed - Cotton Comes to Harlem was a year earlier. That said, technically Sweetback isn't a blaxploitation film at all as it was financed and produced entirely by a black man. Moot point really, but worth mentioning.
In case my point has been lost, let me recapitulate. Sweet Sweetback has to be one of the very worst films I have ever seen in my life. As a piece of cinema, there is absolutely nothing redeeming about it whatsoever.
Approach this as a documentation of the shift in (black) American social consciousness as it related to popular culture of the late '60s and early '70s. Otherwise avoid it altogether, you'll thank me later.
I have no moral objection to the film, but cannot get past the fact that it is utterly incoherent from start to finish. The plot is almost non-existent, and only about a third of the screen time has anything to do with the 'story' anyway. There are random scenes that have no apparent meaning or significance whatsoever.
It looks dreadful, as if the cameraman was on speed and crack at the same time. Beyond this, the night sequences (which make up a large percentage of the film) are so dark that you literally cannot see a thing. Alas, that may be just as well, as it goes some small way to detracting from the mind-blowingly poor 'acting'. Sweetback himself just pouts and minces about, and he's the best 'character' in there. The sound is awful, often with two songs (the same two songs on a continuous loop) literally playing on top of each other.
I really wanted to like this movie, and I still acknowledge it as a milestone in American culture and social history. As a side note, it was not the first blaxploitation film as is popularly believed - Cotton Comes to Harlem was a year earlier. That said, technically Sweetback isn't a blaxploitation film at all as it was financed and produced entirely by a black man. Moot point really, but worth mentioning.
In case my point has been lost, let me recapitulate. Sweet Sweetback has to be one of the very worst films I have ever seen in my life. As a piece of cinema, there is absolutely nothing redeeming about it whatsoever.
Approach this as a documentation of the shift in (black) American social consciousness as it related to popular culture of the late '60s and early '70s. Otherwise avoid it altogether, you'll thank me later.
The one that started it all ...
Mr Pants22 January 1999
You can say what you want about "blaxploitation" films. If nothing else, they can be a lot of fun in their overt use of black stereotypes and semi-predictable storylines. Since their construction is so obvious, it is not the same as the way blacks were portrayed in a film like "Birth of a Nation." Melvin Van Peebles put this thing together by himself (with a little monetary help from Bill Cosby), and while the technical quality is not exactly Hollywood, neither is the content. It is difficult to imagine what it must have been like to have been in the audiences for this film's premiere, as a strong black character emerges to defend his existence against the Racist State. The film uttered what nearly everybody has thought, and seeing it on the screen must have been a truly shocking experience. Perhaps even cathartic, but that may be pushing it. I don't know. I wasn't there.
Maybe it's a good sign that viewing such films today lends itself more to camp fun than any possible serious interpretation; it is a sign that we have moved on, at least a little bit.
Maybe it's a good sign that viewing such films today lends itself more to camp fun than any possible serious interpretation; it is a sign that we have moved on, at least a little bit.
I know I said "spoilers," but these might actually help you
jammasta-120 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
There are a few things you need to know about this film before you see it: 1) It includes pretty graphic sex scenes, one of them featuring the director's teenage son Mario (in the first few minutes). 2) It features a lead that barely speaks throughout the film. 3) It will be a nightmare to watch if you're in it for the action. "Sweetback" is a piece of history which talks about the meaning of race in the US. The film is not realistic, but a metaphor - its main character a "man without qualities," its setting a prototypical black ghetto, its story a mixture of fugitive slave narrative, black power pseudo-propaganda, and nightmarish action thriller. The story is pretty simple: a black stud performing in a sex show for white audiences in the black ghetto is routinely stopped by white police officers (to make up the numbers). Witnessing the cops beat a young black power activist, he uses his handcuffs to kill both policemen and elopes with the boy. All this takes about 20 minutes of the film - the rest documents Sweetback's escape. Sweetback's actions will evoke the worst of racism in the white establishment, while at the same time exposing the ideological malaise of the black strivers. The film is a pain to watch, and that's precisely what it should be. And it speaks against a reality that still exists - blatant white racism and unwillingness to address the issue of race, black conformism and political disaffection.
Deserved its X rating
nutsy28 March 2004
SWEET SWEETBACK'S BAAD ASSSSS SONG has a reputation as a landmark film. Some hail it a masterpiece for depicting whites, and "The Man" as the oppressor. It is also called the first blaxploitation film (even though COTTON COMES TO HARLEM predates it). In spite of this reputation, few have actually seen it.
The truth is that SWEET SWEETBACK'S BAAD ASSSSS SONG, in spite of the good intentions of its message, is poorly made pornographic trash. At the opening of the film we see an under-aged Sweetback have sex with a fat prostitute- and when I say we see it, I mean we SEE it. Not too much time goes by before we see grown up Sweetback (director Melvin Van Peebles) performing in a live sex show. The viewer is treated to a closeup of the star's member as he strips off a female disguise. Soon thereafter the "plot" starts. Our hero is arrested by the Oakland police. He witnesses them beating a young black man and kills them in his defense. The rest of the film is Sweetback running from the racist cops, sometimes stopping for graphic sex.
The photography in this film is terrible. A number of scenes are shot at night without lighting, basically making the action invisible. There is very little dialogue and Sweetback almost never speaks. When people are talking, they are badly miked and their acting doesn't help matters. The chase scenes are done in psychedelic montage which is both ugly and confusing. There are a number of scenes where the cops are asking members of the black community (the film's real star) as to the whereabouts of Sweetback. These are taken from the cops POV and from how it looks, the filmmakers just approached random people on the street and asked them if they'd seen Sweetback. The editor somehow managed to cut off most of their answers. It's hard to tell what's going on half the time, since the camera work is so bad and the dialogue so hard to hear. At one point Sweetback winds up with some bikers. What's he do? He has a kind of sex-match with one of the female bikers. This scene features enough clumsy disolves to make you dizzy and enough genital shots to get the X rating for any ten movies.
I can't tell why this mess is called such a great piece of work. It fails in every technical aspect, the "art" is bad even for an acid-head movie, and the story is nothing special. If anything, this movie hurts the cause of equality since it essentially depicts blacks as inhuman sex-addicted stereotypes. The whites are pretty much shown as monsters. This is the worst blaxploitation film I've ever seen and easily one of the hundred worst movies ever made. SWEET SWEETBACK'S BAAD ASSSSS SONG is no more than badly made violent pornography for the acid head. It's not a classic and it's not important.
The truth is that SWEET SWEETBACK'S BAAD ASSSSS SONG, in spite of the good intentions of its message, is poorly made pornographic trash. At the opening of the film we see an under-aged Sweetback have sex with a fat prostitute- and when I say we see it, I mean we SEE it. Not too much time goes by before we see grown up Sweetback (director Melvin Van Peebles) performing in a live sex show. The viewer is treated to a closeup of the star's member as he strips off a female disguise. Soon thereafter the "plot" starts. Our hero is arrested by the Oakland police. He witnesses them beating a young black man and kills them in his defense. The rest of the film is Sweetback running from the racist cops, sometimes stopping for graphic sex.
The photography in this film is terrible. A number of scenes are shot at night without lighting, basically making the action invisible. There is very little dialogue and Sweetback almost never speaks. When people are talking, they are badly miked and their acting doesn't help matters. The chase scenes are done in psychedelic montage which is both ugly and confusing. There are a number of scenes where the cops are asking members of the black community (the film's real star) as to the whereabouts of Sweetback. These are taken from the cops POV and from how it looks, the filmmakers just approached random people on the street and asked them if they'd seen Sweetback. The editor somehow managed to cut off most of their answers. It's hard to tell what's going on half the time, since the camera work is so bad and the dialogue so hard to hear. At one point Sweetback winds up with some bikers. What's he do? He has a kind of sex-match with one of the female bikers. This scene features enough clumsy disolves to make you dizzy and enough genital shots to get the X rating for any ten movies.
I can't tell why this mess is called such a great piece of work. It fails in every technical aspect, the "art" is bad even for an acid-head movie, and the story is nothing special. If anything, this movie hurts the cause of equality since it essentially depicts blacks as inhuman sex-addicted stereotypes. The whites are pretty much shown as monsters. This is the worst blaxploitation film I've ever seen and easily one of the hundred worst movies ever made. SWEET SWEETBACK'S BAAD ASSSSS SONG is no more than badly made violent pornography for the acid head. It's not a classic and it's not important.
As long as you don't study it for its technique...
morakanabad1 May 2003
This is a film that has several things going for it, none of them technical. The idea of shooting a movie with a largely black cast on dark streets at night without any sort of extra lighting is... well, a bad one, and coupled with its mic-in-the-cameraman's-back- pocket sound mix, an awful lot of the first half of the movie is just shy of being incomprehensible. Add in an editing job that suggests somebody was busy talking on the phone during the cutting of several key scenes, and you could have a real patience- tester of a film on your hands.
Thankfully, the mood of the film is positive enough that its deliriously illogical plot actually works in its favour. Greasy kid Mario van Peebles (minus the "van" here) is transformed into strapping man Melvin van Peebles in a meaningful encounter with a hooker, and you can buy it. On-the-lam hero Sweetback is challenged to a duel by bikers, and nobody so much as blinks when he suggests that it should be a duel of sexual prowess... hell, they don't even seem to care that he doesn't need to move in order to drive his women wild. He's even brought back from the dead by the chorused voices of The Black Community, and it all sort of makes sense, kind of.
In fact, it isn't until the very last shot of the movie, when you realize that 90 minutes and change have built up to... well, nothing much, really, except maybe a shred of belief in the power of an act of will, and perhaps the promise of a sequel, that you feel like taking the movie to task for its gaping technical flaws again. Even then, it's made so earnestly that I don't really have the heart to slag it for its ineptly-blocked camerawork and dreadful acting. I've seen much worse from filmmakers who weren't trying to change the world by giving a damn, so instead I'll talk it up by calling it the spiritual ancestor of the basketball-teleportation ending to He Got Game, and pretty much everything in The Matrix, too. That it was largely the work of one hugely inspired guy makes it all the cooler, so struggling filmmakers, take note! As long as you crib your technique from other places, Sweet Sweetback's Baad Asssss Song should be an inspiration to you.
Thankfully, the mood of the film is positive enough that its deliriously illogical plot actually works in its favour. Greasy kid Mario van Peebles (minus the "van" here) is transformed into strapping man Melvin van Peebles in a meaningful encounter with a hooker, and you can buy it. On-the-lam hero Sweetback is challenged to a duel by bikers, and nobody so much as blinks when he suggests that it should be a duel of sexual prowess... hell, they don't even seem to care that he doesn't need to move in order to drive his women wild. He's even brought back from the dead by the chorused voices of The Black Community, and it all sort of makes sense, kind of.
In fact, it isn't until the very last shot of the movie, when you realize that 90 minutes and change have built up to... well, nothing much, really, except maybe a shred of belief in the power of an act of will, and perhaps the promise of a sequel, that you feel like taking the movie to task for its gaping technical flaws again. Even then, it's made so earnestly that I don't really have the heart to slag it for its ineptly-blocked camerawork and dreadful acting. I've seen much worse from filmmakers who weren't trying to change the world by giving a damn, so instead I'll talk it up by calling it the spiritual ancestor of the basketball-teleportation ending to He Got Game, and pretty much everything in The Matrix, too. That it was largely the work of one hugely inspired guy makes it all the cooler, so struggling filmmakers, take note! As long as you crib your technique from other places, Sweet Sweetback's Baad Asssss Song should be an inspiration to you.
Cinema Omnivore - Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971) 6.1/10
lasttimeisaw18 December 2021
"Rising to the occasion of the rampant anti-Black racism stateside, Melvin is acute enough to be the first black filmmaker to make a meal of it, he knows he must do it fast, to beat everybody else to the punch, so SWEET... foregoes any deliberation on characterization and complexity, goes for broke with its impassioned, anti-police subversion that is exactly what its core audience needs to see and react with. Viewed today, its strength resides solely in the rawness and explicitness of its images and ideology, and the boldness of Melvin's insurrectionary spirit, since from the technical aspect, SWEET... is an amateur's scattershot and slapdash patchwork at its best, but like Sweetback, the film itself is also an outlaw triumphantly escaping from extraneous suppressions, which bestows it its due import historically, culturally and politically."
read my full review on my blog: Cinema Omnivore, thanks.
read my full review on my blog: Cinema Omnivore, thanks.
Well, the soundtrack is OK, anyway
jaco662 January 2022
I understand that this movie is supposed to be groundbreaking, but nothing about it is good. It's terribly acted, terribly shot, terribly directed, REALLY terribly edited. The scenes cut from one to another abruptly, with no sense of forward motion. It's an hour and a half of a mostly silent guy running through the desolation of Los Angeles, having sex in poorly lit locations along the way. If you like 70's era funk, though, then the music might interest you a bit. It's just an awful movie.
A white view.......
caspian19786 October 2001
How did the so called "white audience" view this film? At first glance, I thought it was one of many "black action films." Why not? It's filmed in the same manor that Dolemite was filmed. How does one critic a film that is not looking for any mythological meaning? We judge the acting, the direction, the ending of the film, the overall message. To a viewer born outside the generation of the film makers of this classic (and I say classic because of its hyped background) how can he / she see the struggle between the races if they are blinded by the terrible acting that blocks their view? The only thing positive about the acting in this film is that it is true. Not good, not exactly terrible, just real. Has the acting in many of these "Black Action" films caused a giant black (as in gloomy) cloud over this misunderstood genre that no morals can come out of it? I, like most audiences / critics have an opinion.....the answer to these questions are still ( sad to say ) lost.
awful
TOWchanschic24 February 2005
This is probably the worst thing ever- and not just on film. We had to watch this in my film class as an example of blaxploitation and my teacher turned if off after 20 minutes. No real plot, very angry, very crass. If you are not from that era (or maybe even if you are) this movie will mean nothing to you. The first 5 minutes or so are practically child porn. The rest is just a man running from "the man" to the same crappy song. The dialogs is barely audible and the lighting at night or inside allows you to see absolutely nothing. I understand that this film was important as a civil movement and for many of the people associated it was their first chance for work, but their time would have been better spent on virtually any other project. I was in a classroom with 40 or 50 people and nobody, regardless of race, age, or sex, found any cinematic value- in fact the only pleasant thing I gained from this was that short moment of relief and pure joy when it was turned off.
One of the greatest underground hits of the 70s
funkyfry5 November 2002
A powerful film whose impact is through a montage of images, music, and dialogue, alternating to disorient and reorient the viewer. It might be pretty confusing plot-wise (or perhaps it just doesn't have much of a plot) and the actors are mostly bad, but this film was well thought out and executed with a goal of excellence (something that can't be said for many films, underground or Hollywood). To boot, it is also entertaining and probably gave the exploitation crowd their money's worth in 1971 with some hardcore violence and softcore sex.
Van Peebles created a unique experimental film that succeeds on its own terms. It is a classic for all time.
Van Peebles created a unique experimental film that succeeds on its own terms. It is a classic for all time.
The Man doesn't want you to see this
BandSAboutMovies3 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song is incendiary, 51 years after it was made, so I have no idea what it was like when it played theaters in 1971. Melvin Van Peebles started making it as part of his three-picture deal with Columbia Pictures, but at the end of the day, no studio would finance this.
Van Peebles did it all himself, directing, raising the money, writing, scoring, starring, doing his own stunts and even had unsimulated sex that led to this movie being "rated X by an all-white jury" and if that's not a tagline, tell me a better one.
Not only did he do the stunts, he jumped off a bridge nine times to get the perfect shot. And he got gonorrhea shooting all the sex scenes, then got workers' comp from the Directors Guild for getting hurt while working, using the money to finish this movie.
He came up with the idea by driving his car into the Mojave desert and driving off the highway and then sitting and staring at the sun, which gave him a revelation. He was going to make a movie "about a brother getting the Man's foot out of his ass."
Sweetback grew up in a brothel, learned how to have sex when he was just a kid (that's Mario Van Peebles, Melvin's son, between a sex worker's thighs in the opening) and has taken his lovemaking skills and big cock to the professional arena, performing every night in the live sex show in the house where he grew up.
His boss Beetle agrees to a deal from two cops. Sweetback looks like a killer they're looking for and to keep the white public happy, they're going to arrest him and then release him a day or so later. But then they handcuff him to Mu-Mu, a Black Panther, and when the cops beat the man into oblivion in the middle of nowhere, Sweetback turns his handcuffs into weapons, imposing his will on the Man.
On the run, no one will help our hero. A woman just wants sex for taking off his chains. His boss doesn't want any trouble. A preacher just wants to keep things as they've always been. His episodic journey to freedom leads to drinking water in the desert, using his sex as his greatest weapon and hiding amongst others as dogs are turned on him and black men are attacked by the fuzz at every turn.
It's mind numbing with quick cuts that seem of today and not older than I am. It was required viewing for members of the Black Panther Party. It was a movie that some black writers thought was as false as blacksploitation. But Spike Lee would one day say, "Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song gave us all the answers we needed. This was an example of how to make a film a real movie, distribute it yourself, and most important, get paid. Without Sweetback who knows if there could have been a She's Gotta Have It, Hollywood Shuffle or House Party?"
Van Peebles did it all himself, directing, raising the money, writing, scoring, starring, doing his own stunts and even had unsimulated sex that led to this movie being "rated X by an all-white jury" and if that's not a tagline, tell me a better one.
Not only did he do the stunts, he jumped off a bridge nine times to get the perfect shot. And he got gonorrhea shooting all the sex scenes, then got workers' comp from the Directors Guild for getting hurt while working, using the money to finish this movie.
He came up with the idea by driving his car into the Mojave desert and driving off the highway and then sitting and staring at the sun, which gave him a revelation. He was going to make a movie "about a brother getting the Man's foot out of his ass."
Sweetback grew up in a brothel, learned how to have sex when he was just a kid (that's Mario Van Peebles, Melvin's son, between a sex worker's thighs in the opening) and has taken his lovemaking skills and big cock to the professional arena, performing every night in the live sex show in the house where he grew up.
His boss Beetle agrees to a deal from two cops. Sweetback looks like a killer they're looking for and to keep the white public happy, they're going to arrest him and then release him a day or so later. But then they handcuff him to Mu-Mu, a Black Panther, and when the cops beat the man into oblivion in the middle of nowhere, Sweetback turns his handcuffs into weapons, imposing his will on the Man.
On the run, no one will help our hero. A woman just wants sex for taking off his chains. His boss doesn't want any trouble. A preacher just wants to keep things as they've always been. His episodic journey to freedom leads to drinking water in the desert, using his sex as his greatest weapon and hiding amongst others as dogs are turned on him and black men are attacked by the fuzz at every turn.
It's mind numbing with quick cuts that seem of today and not older than I am. It was required viewing for members of the Black Panther Party. It was a movie that some black writers thought was as false as blacksploitation. But Spike Lee would one day say, "Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song gave us all the answers we needed. This was an example of how to make a film a real movie, distribute it yourself, and most important, get paid. Without Sweetback who knows if there could have been a She's Gotta Have It, Hollywood Shuffle or House Party?"
Badly dated
preppy-321 May 2005
Angry film about a black man who kills a white cop and is on the run from the cops for the entire film. Along the way he kills other people (all white) and has numerous sexual encounters.
I saw this years ago at a revival theatre. I had heard it was an excellent, graphic and powerful film about racism. For the record I'm a white guy. What I saw was a dull, stupid, plot less, badly done movie with inaudible dialogue and scenes constantly going in and out of focus. The film makes it clear that white men are all racist jerks and have no problem with killing black guys. And white women should just be used for sex. This attitude might have seemed revolutionary in 1971 but it comes across today as sexist, racist (against white people) and more than a little questionable. This film might actually have been disturbing if it had been better made. The acting was lousy and the technical aspects of the film were so bad that it's really hard to give an totally accurate judgment of it.
And the stupid tag line "Rated X by an all white jury" is ridiculous. Let's see...it opens with a young black kid (about 12) stripped down and forced to have sex with a woman. THAT alone should give it an X. And there's plenty of nudity, sexual acts and violence shown graphically. BTW it was lowered to an R in 1974.
After about 75 minutes of this I walked out of the theatre. I was just so bored and annoyed I couldn't stay till the end. A lousy, disjointed period piece. Skip it.
I saw this years ago at a revival theatre. I had heard it was an excellent, graphic and powerful film about racism. For the record I'm a white guy. What I saw was a dull, stupid, plot less, badly done movie with inaudible dialogue and scenes constantly going in and out of focus. The film makes it clear that white men are all racist jerks and have no problem with killing black guys. And white women should just be used for sex. This attitude might have seemed revolutionary in 1971 but it comes across today as sexist, racist (against white people) and more than a little questionable. This film might actually have been disturbing if it had been better made. The acting was lousy and the technical aspects of the film were so bad that it's really hard to give an totally accurate judgment of it.
And the stupid tag line "Rated X by an all white jury" is ridiculous. Let's see...it opens with a young black kid (about 12) stripped down and forced to have sex with a woman. THAT alone should give it an X. And there's plenty of nudity, sexual acts and violence shown graphically. BTW it was lowered to an R in 1974.
After about 75 minutes of this I walked out of the theatre. I was just so bored and annoyed I couldn't stay till the end. A lousy, disjointed period piece. Skip it.
Ahead of its time!
chemiche33 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I had heard a lot about Sweet Sweetback's Baad Asssss Song over the years, but finally got to see it yesterday, 5-2-04.
I have to say that I can see how it opened up a new genre..the Blaxploitation films. Whoa! It's powerful from the opening when we read about people in the black community oppressed by 'THE MAN' to the end when Sweetback escapes safely to Mexico (after killing hound dogs)!
There is a lot of symbolism as well. Sweetback lapping water like a dog from the ground in the desert, having sex with an almost Amazon looking white woman till she has an orgasm and calls his name 'Sweetback', Sweetback. Then she helps save him.
One big question I was left with, A woman surrounded by a lot of children says she may have had a child once named Leroy. He was taken away by the state and she doesn't know what happened to him. Is Leroy, really Sweetback? After all the movie opens with a starving, mangy , dirty little boy (young Sweetback) wolfing down food in a brothel and watched by Prostitutes. They take him in and raise him. I take it as saying that the system fails black youth.
The abuse by the white police was appalling, espceially when it came to searching for Sweetback. We hear the white police use the N-word liberally, and Black life is worthless. You can feel the anger of the oppressed black community in the film.
The film may be considered rebellious but I think its a masterpiece. And obviously, Hollywood thought so because it started the era of Blaxploitation films.
I have to say that I can see how it opened up a new genre..the Blaxploitation films. Whoa! It's powerful from the opening when we read about people in the black community oppressed by 'THE MAN' to the end when Sweetback escapes safely to Mexico (after killing hound dogs)!
There is a lot of symbolism as well. Sweetback lapping water like a dog from the ground in the desert, having sex with an almost Amazon looking white woman till she has an orgasm and calls his name 'Sweetback', Sweetback. Then she helps save him.
One big question I was left with, A woman surrounded by a lot of children says she may have had a child once named Leroy. He was taken away by the state and she doesn't know what happened to him. Is Leroy, really Sweetback? After all the movie opens with a starving, mangy , dirty little boy (young Sweetback) wolfing down food in a brothel and watched by Prostitutes. They take him in and raise him. I take it as saying that the system fails black youth.
The abuse by the white police was appalling, espceially when it came to searching for Sweetback. We hear the white police use the N-word liberally, and Black life is worthless. You can feel the anger of the oppressed black community in the film.
The film may be considered rebellious but I think its a masterpiece. And obviously, Hollywood thought so because it started the era of Blaxploitation films.
Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song
jboothmillard22 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Any film that features in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die has got to be worth trying in my opinion, I have been both surprised and occasionally questioning the titles, and this is one I'm somewhere in between. Basically Sweet Sweetback (Melvin Van Peebles), named after his love for sex and large penis, grew up in a Los Angeles brothel after being orphaned, where he worked as a towel boy and lost his virginity to a prostitute, and now as an adult he is a sex show performer, i.e. male prostitute. A black man has been murdered, and the LAPD speak to Sweetback's boss Beetle (Simon Chuckster), and they get his permission to arrest Sweetback, blame him for the crime and then quickly release him to make peace in the black community. When they do arrest him they also bring in young Black Panther named Mu-Mu (Hubert Scales), who insults the police, and eventually the officers remove his cuffs to beat him up very badly, and Sweetback, still cuffed, beats them until unconscious. Next we see Sweetback travelling from South Central Los Angeles towards the United States–Mexico border, where he is arrested again for the earlier assault, only to escape again during a riot. After getting his cuffs removed with the offer of sex, he carries on his journey, getting captured by the biker gang Hells Angels, and the female leader lets him and Mu-Mu go as long as she gets sex, being impressed by his large penis. The police almost catch them, and while Mu-Mu goes with the gang, and he and another Biker (John Amos) are killed, Sweetback continues to run, and a sympathetic white man agrees to swap clothes so he can blend in with society. The police find out Sweetback's real name is Leroy from his foster mother, and the film ends with Sweetback forced to walk across the desert, escaping the hunting dogs, going into the Tijuana River and making it to Mexico, swearing to return. Also starring John Dullaghan as Commissioner and Rhetta Hughes as Old Girl Friend. Van Peebles acts, produces, composes and directs well enough, despite the fact the film is rather weird, with all the sexual behaviour, violence and prostitution element but it is I suppose important in the history of filmmaking, as it does not (completely) stereotype black people, and it is a different non-mainstream film, a strange but kind of fascinating blaxploitation. Good!
"So bad asssss it will make you physically sick."
doraangel26 October 2006
Sweet sweetback's baadasssss song IMO should get an award as worst film ever made ,so Bad asssss it will make you physically sick, maybe the idea was to get stoned and then view it. Such films like ' "manos the hands of fate" in comparison seem classic.The films sound score contains a single song played monotonously throughout that doesn't make a soundtrack as for great camera work all vomit,the main character seems to always end up in meaningless orgies because of his sexual prowess but the scenes lack any imagination strictly missionary and aren't erotic, there's a meaningless chase scene which you cant really tell who he's running from.The film ends abruptly, the producer must have run out of money ,give a monkey a film camera and you'd end up with a better movie.I disliked this film because it seems devoid of developed characters and plot it felt as if the story was conceived as the filmed rolled.
IF you want to watch a true blaxploitation classic I recommend "hitman."
IF you want to watch a true blaxploitation classic I recommend "hitman."
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
