Home About Articles Essays Media Contact
Published on

Classical Blues


"’The Amazing Nina Simone’", her flier reads in as she performa at Carnegie Hall in 1963. It was considered an apex moment in Simone’s career, yet the soul singer remained disappointed. According to her, she should have been playing Bach. 


Director Liz Garbus’ What Happened Miss Simone fails to hone in on Simone’s desire to become the first black female classical pianist in America and does not delve deep into her professional classical talent. The documentary however sets the viewer to believe that amongst everything happening, there is an underlying problem to solve with Simone; What is wrong with her? Garbus romanticizes Simone’s mental illness and manipulates the narrative to ascribe it to her creative dexterity. Not only is this an irresponsible representation of Miss Simone and her work, but it also further perpetuates the idea that untreated mental illness is an ingredient for a successful career. What Garbus does not consider is Simone’s nerve-damaging environment, especially as a dark-skinned black woman living in the Jim Crow South. 

Arguably, this trope hurts the documentary’s portrayal of her many impacts, especially her bellicosity in the civil rights movement. Considering Garbus’ other cinematic works like ‘Love, Marilyn’ and ‘Bobby Fischer Against The World’ where she also implements a similar trajectory of depicting a tortured artist, one has to ask if Garbus thrives of aestheticizing the mental suffering of the 'tortured' artist. Ethically speaking, What Happened Miss Simone? is misleading in its purpose of portraying Nina Simone and it acts as a cinematic illustration of the stereotypical ‘tortured artist’. Ultimately, the documentary introduces a larger issue at hand as it further stagnates the progression society has made in terms of de-stigmatizing mental health treatment.

Firstly, the documentary implements live interviews from Simone’s close-knit community. ‘What Happened Miss Simone?’ errs by including a recorded interview from 2006 of Simone’s ex-husband Andrew Stroud. This is a poor film direction choice considering that Stroud abused Simone emotionally and physically, which he corroborates in the documentary. Not only does his input defeat the purpose of uplifting Miss Simone for her achievement of being successful as a black woman in Jim Crow America, but it also furthers disregards black pain. It is exemplar misogynoir. If we were to apply University of Maryland Sociology professor Patricia Hill Collins’ thoughts on intersectionality (Collins, 1990), then Garbus’ choice as a white woman to include Stroud is an example of lacking intersectional thought because it devalues the trauma of black women. Garbus’ oblivion to black trauma is the reason she purposefully includes excerpts of a man who, as Simone confessed, “put a gun to [her] head” then “tied [her] up and raped [her].” If Garbus included such explicit content in hopes of presenting Simone as a survivor, then her intentions fell short because of Stroud’s conflicting involvement. As a result, Simone is reduced to the tortured artist trope as Stroud capitalized off Simone as her manager while abusing her. Stroud's involvement and commentary on Simone is unnerving and provokes the viewer's revulsion. Garbus’ narrative conveys that Stroud’s abuse fueled Simone’s creativity, therefore making him paramount in the progression of her career. This narrative further reduces Simone to the ‘tortured artist’ trope and misjudges the effects physical abuse can have on one’s mental health.

The aestheticization of the tortured artist capitalizes off the mentally ill, and as a society we feed off people’s trauma for the thrill of consuming content. The depiction of pain on screen is due to society’s desensitization to explicit violence and trauma. This idea is highlighted in American writer and political activist Susan Sontag’s ‘The New Yorker’ article ‘Looking at War’. An example she uses is Tyler Hick’s triptych photographs of wounded/slain Taliban soldiers. As Sontag would proclaim, people seem to have an “appetite for pictures [that show] bodies in pain” (Sontag). Although Garbus does not include anything visually graphic, the retelling of Simone’s abuse is an example of Sontag’s words. To further extrapolate this view, it can be said that Sontag’s words are reflected on how Garbus exploits Simone’s abuse as a shock factor for viewers. Kelley also condemns her own mother for enduring the abuse itself. For example, Lisa Simone Kelly, who is also an executive producer alongside Garbus, claims that Simone staying with Stroud (after enduring serious abuse) was “like playing with fire” after having said that “they were both nuts”. This is a problematic misconception that victims of domestic abuse choose to stay with their partners when it is hard to leave the relationship. 

This misconception is apparent in The New York Reviewer Adam Schatz description of Simone of having ``a weakness for tough men and hustlers' ' which he follows with Kelley’s exact quote (Shatz). The revelation of Simone’s abuse is an example of picturing bodies in pain non-visually because its shock value satisfies the viewer’s insatiable appetite for pain. As an executive producer of the documentary, Kelley holds responsibility in failing to recognize her mother as a victim of domestic violence; she denounces the severity of domestic violence. Arguably in Kelly’s defense, she endured abuse at the hands of Simone too. From this, her perception of Simone and abuse is altered. Sontag mentions that those who look at images of suffering are those who could “do something to alleviate it” while those who unintentionally look at graphic images are “voyeurs” (Sontag). From this, it can be said Kelley is not a ‘voyeur’ like others. She was a part of those who can “alleviate” this pain because of the regularity of abuse she faced; it doesn't faze her. As a result, her comments are representative of society’s ability to become desensitized to violence. Nevertheless, Kelley proposing her parents were mutually abusive is still problematic. Therefore, Garbus’s choice to include this excerpt of Kelley’s wrongfully justifies Simone’s abuse becoming a component to her creative dexterity as the ‘tortured artist’.

Garbus further plays out the tortured artist trope as she prolongs the discovery of Miss Simone’s mental illness. This prolongation is exploitative because it makes Simone appear as a mystery that needs to be solved, further reducing her to the trope. For example, the title itself. The title comes from famous American memoirist and poet Maya Angelou’s essay in RedBook magazine. Angelou asks Simone “what happened to your big eyes that quickly veil to hide the loneliness?”. Angelou’s words express concern over Simone’s wellbeing, and she is reaching out to her as another black woman of the time. Angelou’s original essay expresses sincerity yet when Garbus shortens this quote to just ‘What Happened Miss Simone, it establishes a different tone because of the question’s ambiguity. Garbus then capitalizes off this ambiguity and invites viewers to dissect Miss Simone’s physical and mental turmoil unprovoked. Another example in which this prolongation is exploitative is shown in Garbus’ use of chronological structure (of events). 

Garbus structures certain moments like the revelation of Simone’s abuse and her progression to pro-civil rights music before revealing she suffers from mental illness exhibits Simone as emotionally unstable and radical. Garbus has already made the viewer believe that it was difficult to control Simone because of her ‘irrational decisions’ and therefore the reason for her plummeting career. Why does Garbus ascribe Simone’s bipolarism as her hamartia? She reveals the real reason too late to the audience to change their opinion on Miss Simone. As Christian Science Monitor film critic Peter Rainer agrees, the documentary does not enlarge on her disorder enough and her indignations were much more politically based (Rainer, 1). Rainer highlights Garbus’ problem: she believes Simone’s bipolarism was the reason for her aggression. However much like Rainer, Simone’s mistreatment in American society as a Black woman is the rooted reason for her indignation.

A way in which Garbus encompasses the ‘tortured artist’ trope is through Simone’s bellicosity in the civil rights movement. Simone’s drive however labels her the stereotypical ‘angry black woman’ in the documentary. This reinforcement of the trope is shown through Simone's efforts in the black liberation movement during the 60’s. Although women’s historians have not appreciated Simone as an activist, she has often been associated to black social movements like womanism and the civil rights movement (Feldstein, 1351). For Garbus to gloss over her significance in the pre black arts movement is a paramount mistake because Simone’s socio-political consciousness promoted black liberation through civil rights music. Songs like ‘Mississippi Goddam’ and ‘Baby Blues’ encompass Simone’s negritude as a black soul singer, yet Garbus believes showcasing a playlist of Simone performing them is enough to understand it. To an extent, Garbus provides context to the creation of ‘Mississippi Goddam’ after Simone had learned of the Baptist Church bombing in Alabama that killed four African American girls in 1963. Instead, Garbus spends a great deal on how Simone eventually became more aggressive and ‘non-non-violent’. For example, Garbus includes a clip of Simone performing to a small audience in which she asks if they are “ready to smash things and burn buildings” and “ready to kill if necessary?”. 

What Garbus fails to do is note that Simone is reading from David Nelson’s ‘Are you Ready’ poem. Failure to explain this augments the angry black woman stereotype because it pictures Simone as beastly and radical enough to incite violence. Given the placement of this scene is in the middle of the documentary, it further implies Simone’s aggression was the catalyst of her descent. Considering her relationships with civil rights figures like Langston Hughes and Lorraine Hansberry whose works inspired Simone’s popular civil rights songs, Garbus’ act further denounces Simone’s efforts and diminishes the progression of the civil rights movement. 

Garbus’ What Happened Miss Simone and its trajectory to utilize the tortured artist trope hurts Nina Simone’s posthumous image. Garbus aestheticizes Simone’s turmoil and reserves this dish only for the viewer’s appetite for horror. Despite the documentary’s complications, Garbus’ work makes us ponder on the ethical implications the viewer has after having seen the ‘tortured artist’ in full element; are we equally responsible for consuming such exploitative ploy? As Michigan State student writer Kelsi Karpinski says the myth of the tortured artist should be treated less an unavoidable consequence and more as a call to action (Karpinski). Karpinski’s words highlight the dangers of stagnating mental health treatment to become the tortured artist’. Simone asks for one thing: to not be misunderstood. 


Yet Garbus’ involvement stripped Simone’s voice and exploited her narrative to paint her as a tragic mad genius. It is a shame that a director who felt that “they had been practicing [their] whole life” to make a Nina Simone documentary portrays her turmoil as ‘an unavoidable consequence’ as Karpinski would say (Garbus). Cogently speaking, if Garbus set up the story as a cautionary tale on the tortured artist rather than an exploitative mystery, then perhaps Garbus’ What Happened Miss Simone would have the artwork that put mental health treatment on the pedestal it deserves.






Bibliography

  • - Collins, Patricia Hill, et al. “Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory: Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory, Patricia Hill Collins, Duke University Press, 2019.” Contemporary Political Theory, vol. 20, no. 3, 2021, pp. 690–725, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-021-00490-0.