It saddens me that the BBC only seem to commission dramas about black people that are either hugely patronising or play on stereotypes. Shoot The Messenger falls into the latter category. I saw this last week and was hopeful and interested to watch a virtually all-black cast. The programme was so heavily publicised that it seemed a sin to ignore it. It started off well, showing Joe, a school teacher who is accused of assault by a young black pupil and subsequently loses his career, but after a ridiculous spell in a mental institution (anyone who has had any dealings with mental illness of any shape or form, will recognise this depiction as puerile and ignorant) he turns against all black people. On his release he then travels through a rich series of vignettes involving bad black people who only seem to reinforce his negative ideas about black culture.

As a young black woman, I suppose if I say that I'm annoyed by the stereotyping and negativity, I probably just don't like to hear the truth. If I say that the depiction of black women as females with non-existent self-esteem is offensive, then again, supporters of this film would argue that the truth hurts. I don't care if our 'laundry' is aired - if it takes this to encourage people to talk the problems with drugs, prison and mental illness which are currently occurring in the black community, then i'm all for it. But please, who are the producers of this fodder kidding? The only reason this programme was made was to increase ratings. The BBC have no moral responsibility to the black community - most of its employees don't know any black people apart from the happy go lucky staff who dish out their lunch at the canteen and the friendly but reserved IT guy who comes to mend their computer.

The point is, there are many gifted, talented black writers out there who have vision and the ability to create a good script seamed together with a solid message that would be understood by all races, who will never get a commission from the BBC simply because they're unwilling to resort to this level. It saddens me to read that so many black people are supporting this film. It seems as if we really are starved of seeing our own images in celluloid.

My initial reactions were;

Negative feedback:

1)The writer invented black characters just to try and "prove" a point (e.g. the daughter of the Christian woman with 5 kids from 5 fathers, and also the girl looking for a job and asking about maternity leave). They didn't actually have anything to do with the storyline, and just existed so he could turn his nose up at them. The black on black shooting also had very little point to it, and was just there to "prove" a point.

2)The writer deliberately squeezed in forced levels of negative black stereotypes - trying too hard to provoke.

3) The only redeeming black character (his girlfriend) wasn't given a strong enough voice to actually put forward a counter argument (and making her have 'hair issues' was a real cop out!!).

4) Lots of the negative behaviour from black people was way over the top and unbelievable or even petty (e.g. when the guy in the job centre kicked over the bin when the main guy was cleaning up. I couldn't see that happening.)

5) No wider context of the situation. E.g. He said he was the only teacher who cared about the black kids, but the film didn't attempt to show how the white teachers didn't care. So resulted in all the black characters looking bad, and all the white character were helpful or good.

6) Lots of statements just put in there to shock - such as when he said they should bring back slavery. Again that had no real use in the storyline, and was only there to shock and provoke.

Positive feedback

1) Well filmed and acted >Interesting how even when he still hated black people he could embrace the black church. (the stuff of very loaded debate! ha, ha, ha )

2) Important issue raised of how heavy handedness and harsh treatment of ourselves may be counter productive.(The moment of realisation of mistakes for the main character)

3) There were a couple of funny moments and gave the ability to laugh at ourselves without self hatred, but unfortunately they were hugely overshadowed by far too many moments of self hatred.

4) Quite strong ending.

Overall I wasn't as offended as I thought I would be, but I do think there was a far less exploitative way of exploring the same issues. Apparently the BBC sent her back the script a couple of times saying it wasn't bad or shocking enough. The writer got seduced by that attention, and unfortunately that "trying to shock" factor has got in the way of what could have been an important debate for the black community. It tried to tackle every issue and bit off more than it could chew. I feel the main character was just living through the experiences of the writer Sharon Foster, and not, as she claims, putting an honest mirror to the black community. A lot of the things in there, I felt, were her issues, not anyone else's.

As can be seen from some of the comments posted here, there are plenty of people intent on 'shooting the messenger', rather than listen to the message itself. In this case, the message happens to be the questioning of blame-culture which exists among certain sections of the black community. It is the contention of the author (Sharon Foster, herself a black writer) that it is this culture, and not that which is being blamed (ie white people), which is the cause of black underachievement. It is a serious argument, and one that can withstand close scrutiny, but that hasn't stopped the usual suspects from using their lazy cries of 'Racism' to try and silence the debate. A similar point was made during the film itself and it is interesting that many of the same terms of abuse used to castigate the main character in the film are identical to the ones being thrown around here (mainly by people who don't appear to have seen it). That would seem to indicate that Foster is, indeed, on to something.

Of course, this film could amount to no more than a 'worthy' drama, but 'Shoot The Messenger' is much more than that, due, in no small measure, to the quality of the writing. Foster has constructed an engrossing journey of self-discovery which begins with provocative words ( a gauntlet deliberately thrown in the face of the audience) uttered by Joe Pascale (excellently played by David Oyelowo), a well-intentioned but somewhat aloof black teacher, who falls foul of the authorities after he is accused of hitting a pupil. The fact that this is not true does not prevent him being vilified on a local black radio station. He loses the case in court and this leads him into a spiral of depression and madness, which he increasingly blames on black people (an interesting inversion of the blaming of white people which seems acceptable among his black contemporaries). I found this portion of the work the least satisfactory since the script sped over his insanity rather too quickly leading to loss of detail. After spending some time on the street, he is befriended by a middle-aged Black Christian lady. It is at this point the script really catches fire with some astute and occasionally hard-hitting views of the black community. All of this is maintained by a high degree of directorial energy and a high class cast. Highly recommended.