Barbershop

EDDIE. This is the barbershop. The place where the black man means something. Cornerstone of the neighbourhood. Our own country club.

I mean, can’t you see that? (1:17:00 minutes)

69 According to Joel Waldo Finler, in his book, The Hollywood Story, the total production costs for Coming to America amounted to $64,9 million dollars (191). A distribution deal with a well-connected company (Paramount Pictures) is critical for films with such budgets because it ensures that these expenses are eventually balanced out, with an added bonus of being able to potentially generate a profit.

The barbershop as shown through the film’s narrative matches popular renderings of the institution it represents. This institution, as described by Trudier Harris in her 1979 article

“The Barbershop in Black Literature,” is “usually locally owned and casually operated . . . is not only ‘homey’ in its attitude and psychological warmth, it is also homey in its physical characteristics” (112). From the film’s opening sequences of stock photographs of African American barbershops, to the diegetic setting of the films main character’s (Calvin Palmer, played by O’Shea Jackson, also known as Ice Cube) family-owned barbershop, this is the visual depiction of what Harris describes in her text. Calvin’s barbershop is located in Chicago’s Southside, situated in the middle of a street with other African American-owned businesses, and is frequented by locals who, as can be inferred from their conversation and interactions, have lived and worked there most of their lives. Additionally, because these businesses are often frequented by people from the immediate area, talk in the barbershop is generally in relation to local activities and personalities, making it linguistically- and neighbourhood-specific. As such, it is a familiar public space, which, as a part of the neighbourhood, is in touch with what is going on through gossip and/or the conversation inspired by the relaxed, discursive atmosphere maintained by its idiosyncratic setting and customer base.

The plot in Barbershop pivots on Calvin’s (and his customers’) resistance to the capitalist-motivated business incursions on the street where his barbershop is located. The businesses across the street represent competing commercial interests in the neighbourhood, notably a flashy new barbershop which Calvin fears will take what little income he makes away. He is forced to make a decision about whether to keep his barbershop open despite threats of foreclosure, consequently having to let go of the possibility of exploring new business ideas he has with the money he could potentially make from selling it. Ultimately, he stands his ground, thereby saving the “cornerstone” of his community.

It could also be argued that black barbershops constitute a site which challenges white hegemonic power because it insists on the patronage of black people due to the fact that it deals with black hair and is usually located in or near black neighbourhoods.

Correspondingly, impervious to the oppressive elements brought on by the white hegemony, the barbershop is a place where African American men in the community can congregate for grooming, social or politically-focused updates and/or social escape with potentially relative comfort. Furthermore, Eddie’s quote speaks directly to what Nikol G. Alexander-Floyd terms the “Black cultural pathology narrative,” in that it implies that the barbershop acts as an

empowering space where black men (who are endangered) can nurture and (re)build a sense of themselves, which would ultimately benefit the community as a whole.

As can be observed in the historical record, African Americans have not been afforded the same treatment at various levels of society and politics as white US Americans, thereby arguably positioning them as secondary citizens of the United States. To varying degrees of application, it can be contended that this problem persists. Given these conditions, it follows that the absence of the hierarchy of masculinities established through a white US American hegemony by entering another which is focused on African American male interests as it does in a barbershop setting, allows for the existence of a space where a “black man means something.” The film draws attention to this assertion through the character of Isaac Rosenberg (Troy Garity). As a white man who works in the black, masculine hegemony of the barbershop, the character of Isaac presents an effective example of this reversal of power roles.

Isaac needs the acknowledgement and approval of the black masculinities that occupy the barbershop space to survive because while his chair remains empty, he cannot earn an income. As it happens, he does not win any customers, which implies that the African American clientele do not trust that as a white man, he is able to cut their hair as well as the African American barbers, if at all. It is however simultaneously indicated that the men in the shop do not see him as “white.” For example, with Isaac sat in front of him, Eddie begins a monologue in which he discredits revered African American icons and convictions with,

“Now, I probably wouldn’t say this is front of white folk, but in front of ya’ll I’m gonna speak my mind . . . ” (00:55:15 minutes).⁷⁰

Added to the complexity of Isaac’s reception as a white man in a black hegemonic space, another message embedded in his rejection as a barber is that he, as a white man, is being prevented from an easy appropriation of this “cornerstone” of the African American community for his financial and/or social advantage (00:17:54 to 00:18:00 minutes). He can socialise in a barbershop, have an African American girlfriend, listen to hop, dress hip-hop, speak in the local African American vernacular and claim that these constitute “who [he is];” even declaring that these attributes make him “more black” than one of his African American colleagues. This emerges from a final confrontation he has with Jimmy James (Sean Patrick Thomas). In this scene, Isaac declares, “This is who I am!” in response to digs Jimmy makes about the authenticity of Isaac’s character and the integrity of his ambitions to

70 For a second example, see Barbershop 01:13:44 minutes.

own a black barbershop (01:26:00 minutes). So, while Isaac may be “black” judging from his lifestyle choices and in the way he chooses to express his identity culturally (i.e., in his use of African American-identified vernacular, fashions, music tastes etc.), permission to pass into an environment whose business is concerned with an innate signifier of “blackness” (i.e., in the form of hair), is mediated under the wary eye of the guardians of that “blackness,”

(namely, all the black masculinities that frequent the space).

He eventually does pass: as if to demonstrate what the film expounds is the egalitarian nature of the barbershop space which respects and approves of earnestly-rooted motivations, it turns out Isaac cuts black hair well which leaves the viewer with impression that he may in the foreseeable future continue to do so based on that merit (notably, this permission is granted only after the approval of a black man). The narrative thus propounds that supporting and taking pride in what is understood as African American culture is not hinged on a person’s skin colour, but on a shared respect and interest in it. Most significantly however, by allowing Isaac into that space and permitting him to literally survive the oppressions of a white-focused, capitalist-favoured society (by way of earning a wage from giving haircuts) and figuratively (like the other black men for whom the barbershop represents a site of returned power), Barbershop pronounces, in the vein of conservative Afrocentric politics, that skin colour is irrelevant when it comes to a sincere pursuit of economic, social and thus political advancement. Moreover, this rhetoric contends that discussing skin colour and its correlation to oppression and thus the resulting disempowerment, is counter-productive, implying that it is the individual who impedes their own betterment by resigning themselves to such thoughts.⁷¹

Though a barbershop is a habitually-frequented environment in which current local, national or international news and events are raised and discussed, this space can at the same time also be exclusionary as it is limited in the range of subjects available for conversation.

This is because, as a place for grooming almost exclusively frequented by people identifying as male, the perceived need to police and construct degrees of masculinity are arguably heightened in such an environment. As a corollary, within such a setting, topics which are, for example, gender conscious, which reference homosexuality or which raise discourses connected to these themes are not viable or encouraged because they conflict with the expectations of the type of masculinity displayed in the barbershop set-up. In this way, an African American barbershop like the one depicted in the film (which seeks to mirror a

71 This point will be expanded on later in this subsection.

typical barbershop atmosphere), which focuses on nourishing paradigms of “manhood” and concentrates on issues around black male socialisation, thus also becomes a place which is exemplary of the non-inclusive, conservative value-based Afrocentrist discourses.

Appropriately, Barbershop’s Calvin Palmer epitomises these attributes.

Barbershop presents a plurality of black masculine identities as well as the

“hierarchy” of these in the space. For the most part, Calvin, who is at the top of the hierarchy of masculinities presented in the barbershop, is to be read as a positive character. For though he is flawed (which is necessary for the tensions arising in the plot), he is a married man and father-to-be who reluctantly observes his responsibilities to the shop by opening it up for business daily, despite his unwillingness and unhappiness in doing so. It is made apparent that Calvin has aspirations to earn a sizable fortune for which he has hatched several plans.

However, given the nature of the barbershop business with its “relaxed physical and business setting,” he will never accumulate monetary wealth from it (Harris 113). His subsequent internal reconciliation with this inevitability is an essential part of his characterisation as it highlights an important element of the film’s message, which suggests that individually-based desires to gain financial wealth are not only selfish, but counter-productive to the betterment of the community. This assertion is illustrated explicitly through the villainous character, Lester Wallace (Keith David), who is a gangster and a pimp, feared and loathed by the community. In this way, Calvin’s characterisation of being a “good man” is tied to Afrocentrist patriarchal notions that educators like Jawanza Kunjufu posit, namely, that “one of the most revolutionary things you can do is to keep your marriage intact and raise your children.” (qtd. Austin 2009: 120)

As part of his paternalistic attributes, Calvin, for example, controls music levels and times when “rap music” can be played in the barbershop, mediates bad language, breaks up heated arguments, looks after his employees (as displayed in his attentions to Michael Ealy’s Ricky Nash), and generally maintains the peace. Furthermore, through him, the omnipresent message of the film is repeated again, which asserts that like a parent, Calvin (i.e., all responsibly-minded African American men) must make sacrifices for the greater good. To furnish a few examples of those who have sacrificed for this “greater good,” Calvin himself names “The Panthers . . . Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson . . . [and] Rosa Parks . . . ” (00:54:34 minutes).

The measure of a man as expressed in Barbershop proclaims through every featured male character that respect is earned and kept when each faces up to his particular diegetic challenge and remains accountable for that action, regardless of the outcome. In short,

another didactic message coursing through Barbershop’s plot continuously demands that each character “man up,” whilst simultaneously affirming that there is more to a person than what one is presented with at face value.

By setting some of the characters up against each other, forcing one to fail while the other succeeds in its quest to define its idea of an exemplary “manhood,” the film constructs rudimentary dialectical oppositions between character and action in each, with obvious indications of which “character and action” is ultimately right or wrong. So, for example, as can be observed through the interactions between Jimmy James and Isaac Rosenberg, the didactical lessons here are that a better man does not put another down by insulting him and/or by instigating physical violence. A better man should remain humble and must understand that knowledge is not only obtained through higher education. Knowledge has to also extend to the Self, for a true acceptance and familiarity of one’s individual skills and interests allows one to develop into a respected man, who in turn can contribute positively to the community. These and other dichotomous messages are reiterated throughout the film.

Jimmy forms part of the body of men who are presented in unfavourable ways, and who therefore serve as antagonistic examples of the measure of an “ideal man,” as advocated by the film. The others include Lester Wallace (Keith David), Kevin (Jason George), J.D.

(Anthony Anderson) and his co-conspirator, and Detective Williams (Tom Wright).

When Jimmy is introduced, he is carrying a newspaper under his arm and is patronising when making a complex coffee order. Not only is he consequently shown as actively literate (i.e., reading the paper, thereby keeping abreast of current, newsworthy affairs), he instantly comes off as pretentious and arrogant. He is confrontational throughout the film because he insists that he knows more than the others in all the conversations he is a part of. It is also made clear that the source of his conceitedness is that he is the character in the barbershop that has gone to college. From every interaction he has with the other characters however (which is almost always with his particular brand of condescension), he is proved wrong. Thus, as stated above, the film is suggesting that having gone through higher education does not necessarily equate to possessing “knowledge.”

By contrast, Isaac not only stands up for the value of the barbering profession when Jimmy dismisses the potential of a viable future in the business, he announces his steadfast intention to run a barbershop for black hair. Though the others do not take this dream seriously because Isaac is white, the viewer is given the impression that a future for him in black barbering may be possible when, near the close of the film, he successfully trims Jimmy’s hair following a second argument between the two. Thus, as mentioned earlier, what

is implied by this narrative turn is that, ultimately, Isaac may win customers based on the merit of his talent and not on the assumption that in order to cut black hair, one has to be black. The film also simultaneously shows that this could in fact be the opposite, as is evidenced by Jimmy’s mistake, when he accidentally shaves a hole into a customer’s head (00:26:10 minutes).

While Isaac is flashy with the way he flaunts what he has and appears self-assured, in the end, the narrative reveals that his ambition to be a barber is as humble as the profession itself. He wishes to own a barbershop because he finds pleasure in the work and believes he has the required skills. The resulting message emerging from Jimmy’s role is that education necessarily includes the act of listening. It is through this action that he learns of Isaac’s earnestness in his intention to barber black hair and his skill in it, and thus the value in having an ambition and endeavouring to achieve it, as Isaac exemplifies. Furthermore, as proved by the outcome of this scene the directive is that being humble and listening first before sharing what you know also makes for a better person (and man, in this case).

Another prominent lesson stemming from the principle that each man is accountable to himself and is responsible for his actions and choices, is evinced through the character of Ricky Nash. Ricky is the broody, attractive barber with an element of danger in his characterisation due to the fact that he has recently spent time in prison. Though he never uses it, he also carries a gun which he hides in his locker, and which completes the construction of him as a “bad-boy type” in the audience’s mind. However, in keeping with the narrative thematic in Barbershop which constructs ostensibly polarising attributes for each character in order to deliver its message, the audience is consistently shown that words and clarity of mind are Ricky’s most powerful weapon. Thus, if any viewer might have initially dismissed him as “no good,” they would be shown otherwise, thereby reinforcing the adage that there is more to any character than meets the eye.

Towards the close of the film, at the tail end of a loose discussion on the subject of reparations for African Americans, Ricky literally voices elements of the conservative Afrocentrist argument he signifies.

RICKY NASH. We don’t need reparations a’ight, we need restraint.

Restraint. Some discipline. Don’t go out and buy a range rover when you livin’ wit yo mama! And pay your mama some rent. And can we please, please try and teach our kids somethin’ other than The

Chronic album?⁷² And please black people, be on time for somethin’

other than ‘free before 11’ at the club. (1:13:00 minutes)

Besides reasserting arguments that implicitly controvert the extent to which racist power structures impact African American lives, it suggests that the problems of African American communities are rooted in the denial of self-accountability; that once African American men seek self-empowerment through responsibility-driven actions, the community as a whole would benefit. This is demonstrated by way of the side story which shows the men in the barbershop coming together to raise money for Johnnie Brown’s shoes. Those who come into the shop are invited to contribute to the fund so that the neighbourhood’s promising athlete, who cannot afford the necessary shoes, can therewith achieve the next step in his sporting career. When they succeed and Johnnie is observed by Calvin receiving his shoes, Calvin decides to give Lester back the money he borrowed from him because he sees the value in the barbershop to the community and how together they achieved something that will help elevate another member of that community (00:18:52 minutes).

The neighbourhood depicted in Barbershop is in a state of change, marked by the influx of new businesses and by the need for it to accept and include into its definition as “an African American community,” people who are Asian (Samir, the Indian store owner from across the street from the barbershop, played by Parvesh Cheena), and white (Isaac). In light of these changes, the plot focuses on ways in which this Southside locale unites through the actions of the men in the community, who must overcome their individualist agendas and join forces to save the institution of the barbershop, and thus its constituents. The narrative therefore concentrates on African American male socialisation and its correlation to notions of an ideal African American masculinity. As such, Barbershop spends the entirety of its plot constructing the male identities it implies are required to meet the objective of saving the fragmenting community.

The various masculinities presented in the film are primarily defined by the roles, actions and reactions ascribed to them, and so are characterised in a way that fit examples of

The various masculinities presented in the film are primarily defined by the roles, actions and reactions ascribed to them, and so are characterised in a way that fit examples of