What do you think of The Hate you Give (2018)?

I just saw the movie, after I found out about it from a post on here actually so thanks for that

I like parts of the story, but I felt that perhaps it takes some wrong turns.

Basically the movie is about how African-Americans are facing oppression in the US, from the police.

Now I am not an American, so I am viewing this movie as a foreigner, and so I may not be an expert on the issue, but these are just my thoughts as to how the movie presented it's material.

Now in the movie, I don't agree with what the cop did and he shouldn't have shot the black kid without a warning like that. However, I feel that the movie portrays the shooting victim as a real idiot though, cause when the cop pulls him over, he has his music on which makes it difficult for the cop to talk to him and he constantly antagonizes the cop, not only by insulting him verbally, but also refusing to obey his commands and has to be told repeatedly. So the cop finally takes him out of the car, and his him move to the back of the car, and put his hands on the back of the car, cause he was not being cooperative.

The cop then goes to run his license in his computer. The kid then takes his hands off the back of the car, moves to the front of the car, and leans in the window, grabs a hairbrush off the floor, and then pulls it out the window.

Now again I don't think the cop should have shot him without warning, but I feel like the kid would have to be a complete idiot do something like this, especially after antagonizing the cop prior to this and refusing to obey his commands at first, which were normal police procedure commands when being pulled over. I don't agree with the cops actions, but I feel the victim, didn't have to be kind of an idiot, unless I'm wrong.

Also later on in the movie, the main characters Dad gets into a fight with the gang characters, and the police see it and try to stop it. The gang characters take off and they ask him what happened. He then lies to the police and does not talk about what happened. So the police then want to take him in for questioning. And his family objects to the police arresting him, but he chose to lie to them, like he has something to hide, and he made it obvious that he was lying to them. So of course they are going to detain you for questioning, if you are not telling the truth and it was obvious that something had went down, right in front of them.

I feel that if the movie is about a race of people being unfairly oppressed that they should have made the oppressed people out to be cooperative with authority. That way the come off as more innocent, to the viewer, rather than antagonizing authority. Now I don't think the police should have responded by shooting again, like I said, by why does the oppressed race have to be the one to strike the first blow of antagonizing, if they are the oppressed ones. If they just made them cooperative, and they were still being oppressed, then the oppression would come off as more powerful, wouldn't it?

Another thing in the plot that I thought was also a misfire perhaps is, that the kid who was shot was working for a gang, and dealt drugs for them. This creates this whole subplot about the gang wanting to silence the main character as a witness, cause they think she will tell this information about the victim, when she testifies.

So the gang wants to silence her. But this also gives the oppressed community more of a criminal background and I felt that took away from it, cause if you want to make a movie about an oppressed community, make the community innocent, cause then that makes the oppression more powerful.

In the movie, it is said that the community being oppressed is what lead to the formation of the gang, which is understandable, but think it made the material less powerful to make this a subplot rather than make the community innocent, and still oppressed.

The movie ends with the gang being busted and the main character testifying against them. So the movie is about a black kid who is killed by a white cop, and the main character who witnessed this, feels she needs to something about it cause she feels the white police are oppressing her community. But then the movie ends with her helping the white police bust a black gang from her own community.

Now I am not on the cop's side for what he did, not at all, don't get me wrong.

But doesn't that make the theme of oppression a lot less powerful if it ends with the oppressed people turning over criminals in their own community, that the oppressors created as they said?

It's like the community is saying to the oppressors, you made crooks out of some of us, so here's the crooks handed to you on a plate, enjoy.

Or maybe I took the material wrong, or what do you think?

So you contradict your own conclusion, both gangs are oppressing, police gang and street gang.. colors are blurry, see Common's character..

Underrated movie imho, nominated Amandla Stenberg for Breakthrough performance and Russell Hornsby for Best supporting actor in the MoFo Awards.

__________________
Letterboxd
Entertainment log

Oh okay, thanks, but how do I contradict my own conclusion? Why should a movie about a black community wanting to go up against white oppressors, end with the black community giving them more black people to arrest?

They wen't up against both oppressors as you said, so that's what it's about, not one or the other..

'giving them more arrests' = more like cleaning their own streets, helping themselves, speaking up for themselves, empowerment etc.. not helping the ones that they wen't up against but using 'the law' in the right way..

I thought this movie was excellent but it pissed me off for myriad reasons. I actually had to stop it a couple of times to compose myself. There's no way to justify what the cop did, but the kid was very uncooperative and once he got him out of the car, the cop told him more than once not to move. If memory serves, he told him to stand on the side of the car and not move at least three times and what did the kid do? He reached inside the car to get a hair brush? That was the moment he decided he needed to touch up his hair? On the other hand, the cop got off with what was essentially a slap on the wrist and that was wrong.

Yep I agree for sure, it was wrong.

They don't really explain why the grand jury decided not to indict though. The characters get a text on their phone saying they decided not to indict, but I think a reason would have been nice, rather than the whole "the system sucks" notion where everyone believes it sucks and that's the only reason you can come up with.

But I feel that the movie could have been more powerful if they concentrated on the shooting injustice, and not have made it about a separate gang war plot for the third act, as I felt that took away from the issue and made it less powerful.

The gang war thing was unnecessary, but the rest of the story could have been a little more black and white...why not have the kid cooperate completely and get shot anyway? The cop gets an out because he told the kid not to move and he did?

Yeah but the cop could have lied of course in his report to save face.

It's almost as if the writers said "if we're going to make a movie about an oppressed race, we should make the oppressed race very flawed, and on the brink of destroying themselves".

Lol, rarely do i see people to call a movie out to be MORE black or white.

The issue is a very gray one, and I'm surprised the filmmakers handled it with surprise maturity in not making it one sided.

good movie. the only other movie could to have similar themes is girlhood, also a very good movie. We don't get many views from the perspective of black women, it's refreshing. Love and basketball is another.

Well, I think there is a difference between a movie not picking a side, compared to picking a side, an then switching sides, which is how I interpreted this one, at least on first viewing.

I think it came out on the wrong time, the time for the film was either several years earlier or several years later.

Oh why several years later?