There may be good reasons to not like Ballast, but the fact that a "white" director made it should not be one of them
I don’t see any problem with a person from one group making a work of art/entertainment about a person or people from another social/religious/political/national/ethinic/”race”/whatever group. We (humans) have been doing it for thousands of years. Some do it well, others don’t. But either way, it’s alright to do.
I thought Gandhi was well done - not that I am an expert on the life & times of Gandhi - but, as a movie goer - what I saw & heard seemed like a good reflection of what I knew about Gandhi, even though the movie was made by a non-Indian & “white”, British director. So, it is possible, I think, for a person to make a good movie about a person or a group of people from another group/nation/time, etc.
Back to Ballast: within any large group of people there is a lot of variety in personalities, reactions to the world, etc. It would be impossible to prove that a certain character trait does not exist or has never existed in a given group, as portrayed (sp?) in a movie.
Have not seen Ballast yet. If I end up not liking it, it won’t be for the fact that a “white” director made it even though it’s about “black” people. Say NO to segregation in art making ya’ll.
For the Spout post & all the comments, go here.