The biblical Hagar narrative inhabits a clearly defined space as a critical story within African American, and most specifically womanist, theology. Founding womanist theologian Delores Williams spends a great deal of time unpacking the Hagar narrative in her pivotal work Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God-Talk. She writes, \u201cThe African American community has taken Hagar\u2019s story unto itself. Hagar has \u2018spoken\u2019 to generation after generation of black women because her story has been validated as true by suffering black people\u201d (33). Shifting gears from black theology to black cinema \u2013 specifically, the films of Tyler Perry \u2013 I am interested in exploring the Hagar motif as it appears in one of Perry\u2019s cinematic productions, <\/span>Madea Goes to Jail<\/i>. Perry critics and supporters alike widely acknowledge that his primary audience is comprised of black, church-going women. Keeping this primary audience in mind, I believe Perry \u2013 either consciously or subconsciously \u2013 imbues Madea Goes to Jail with nuances of the Hagar story as manifested in the relationships between Josh (Abram), Linda (Sarai) and Candy, the prostitute (Hagar).<\/span> Madea Goes to Jail<\/i> \u2013 Perry\u2019s highest-grossing film, adapted from one of his most popular stage plays \u2013 tells the story of Josh Hardaway, an assistant district attorney; his relationship with his fianc\u00e9, fellow attorney Linda Holmes; and a relationship disruption in the form of Candace \u201cCandy\u201d Washington, a prostitute who is a childhood friend of Josh\u2019s and a client of Linda\u2019s. Of immediate note is the fact that Josh and Linda are equally yoked in this story \u2013 a rarity among couples in Perry\u2019s cinematic works. Both are intelligent, well-educated, <\/p>\n successful and financially sound, and both seem to be on track for career advancements within the district attorney\u2019s office. Unlike Linda, however, who appears to hail from an upper-class environment, Josh refers throughout the film to his upbringing in a dangerous and unstable neighborhood. This disparity in their backgrounds does not seem to be an issue for the couple until Candy appears on the scene and her friendship with Josh is rekindled. The audience first encounters Candy as a minor character in the courtroom where she has been arrested for prostitution. Josh, her court-appointed attorney, quickly recognizes Candy as his childhood friend and college acquaintance, necessitating his fianc\u00e9, Linda, to take over her case. The equal footing and camaraderie between Josh and Linda is heavily underscored in this scene, as the two swap cases and favors as easily as if they were trading baseball cards. Much like, as Williams notes, \u201cHagar\u2019s well-being was determined by Sarai\u201d (17), Candy\u2019s well-being is in Linda\u2019s hands once Linda assumes responsibility for Candy\u2019s prosecution.<\/span><\/p>\n When Josh attempts to reconnect with Candy and offer her help despite her protests, Linda and the couple\u2019s friend and colleague, Tanya, staunchly criticize him. Tanya chastises Josh for his feelings of guilt, stating, \u201cI made it out of the ghetto, too, but I don\u2019t apologize for it. These people will never let you forget, and as long as you let them do that, you will always feel a sense of obligation to them.\u201d Linda echoes Tanya\u2019s sentiment, arguing that Candy and Josh\u2019s other childhood companions \u201cwere afforded the same opportunities you were. You did something and they didn\u2019t.\u201d In an ensuing argument back at Josh\u2019s apartment, Josh decries this oversimplification, telling Linda, \u201cYou\u2019ve always had things handed to you. You\u2019ve always been like Daddy\u2019s little princess.\u201d Although Josh agrees at the end of this argument not to help Candy any further, he soon comes to her aid after she flees from an abusive pimp. Linda is enraged at the sight of Candy asleep on Josh\u2019s couch (although Josh is clearly not trying to hide anything from Linda), and she tells Josh he has \u201csome decisions to make\u201d before storming out.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n At this point in the film, Candy\u2019s story has not yet dovetailed with the Hagar narrative. Sarai encouraged Abram to sleep with Hagar in the hopes that she might bear him a son; Linda, on the other hand, is outraged by the very notion that Josh would offer help to this hooker, much less foster a friendship with her. Soon, though, the narratives collide. Much like Sarai\u2019s harsh dealings with Hagar incite Hagar to run away, Linda\u2019s harsh dealings with Josh about Candy drive Candy away, back into the dangerous and hostile \u201cwilderness\u201d of the streets where she is soon arrested once more for engaging in prostitution. Later in the Genesis narrative, Sarah insists that Abraham cast out Hagar and Ishmael to ensure that Isaac\u2019s inheritance is not compromised, much to Abraham\u2019s distress. This neatly mirrors Linda\u2019s insistence, rooted in jealousy and insecurity about Josh\u2019s motives and fidelity Linda is a clear allegorical counterpart to Sarah, but her story also contains overtones of the biblical Jezebel. Here we encounter an interesting dual-interpretation of the jezebel theme within Tyler Perry movies. Examining contemporary depictions of the jezebel character within black cinema, the jezebel is identified by African American media studies scholars Bishetta D. Merritt and Melbourne S. Cummings as \u201cthe innately promiscuous, seductive, bad Black \u2018gal\u2019\u201d (190). In contemporary films, this modern jezebel often manifests as \u201cthe Black prostitute in either minor speaking roles as informants or in background images of police station squad rooms and extras populating street corners\u201d (Merritt and Cummings, 190). According to these descriptors, Candy, not Linda, closely fits the jezebel template. However, in accordance with Scripture, Linda\u2019s actions align with those of Jezebel. <\/p>\n Like Jezebel conspiring against Naboth in 1 Kings 21, Linda bears false witness against another for the sake of personal gain. In Linda\u2019s case, she significantly pads the evidence against Candy, exaggerating the severity of her charges to warrant harsher sentencing. Much like Jezebel lies and guarantees Naboth\u2019s death so that her husband, King Ahab, can take possession of Naboth\u2019s vineyard, Linda ensures through her deceitful dealings that Candy will spend almost two decades of her life behind bars \u2013 and, conveniently, out of Josh\u2019s life. Although Linda does not meet the same gruesome end as Jezebel \u2013 thrown from a window by her own servants and eaten by dogs \u2013 she does experience both the untimely demise of her career and the certainty that she herself will now spend time behind bars. Chuck, though not Linda\u2019s servant, is a friend and colleague who metaphorically \u201cthrows her to the wolves\u201d when he confesses Linda\u2019s wrongdoings to Josh. As a prosecutor, Linda will be at risk for personal harm once she is sent to prison with inmates she helped to convict. She may, in a figurative sense, find herself eaten alive.<\/p>\n Candy, on the other hand, enjoys both newfound freedom and the promise of a future with Josh as a byproduct of Linda\u2019s misdeeds. In some ways, Candy embodies the subtle persona of a new-styled jezebel, who is \u201cwilling and able to gain revenge against corrupt officials, drug dealers, and violent criminals\u201d (Merritt and Cummings, 191). She does not act directly as an agent of vengeance and violence, but her ability to outwit and escape from Donna\u2019s pimp, and her unwitting participation in Linda\u2019s scheme, both contribute to the overthrow of corruption. If not for Josh and Chuck\u2019s close proximity to Candy\u2019s case, Linda most likely would have continued to maintain her 89% conviction rate on the backs of people who were more innocent than she portrayed them to be. <\/p>\n In addition, worthy of note in the film is the fact that Josh and Linda are engaged and planning a wedding, but not yet married. This scenario perfectly mirrors that of the three major characters in Perry\u2019s 2012 film Good Deeds, which tells the story of a well-to-do businessman who abandons his predictable, elegant life (and fianc\u00e9) for a more real and exciting life with the cleaning woman in his office building \u2013 a single mother on the verge of destitution. In both films, the male leads are fast approaching their wedding days, but the nuptials are called off before the men enter in to the covenant of marriage. I believe Perry wishes both to emphasize that the working class women in these narratives are not home wreckers \u2013 a notion that would most certainly impact their likability \u2013 and to avoid any depictions of \u201cgood\u201d men deserting their roles within the nuclear family. Divorce, for Perry\u2019s couples, appears to be reserved for the \u201cbad\u201d and the battered. Preserving the sanctity of marriage for these two unlikely couples seems key. <\/p>\n Indeed, marriage appears to be the happy ending in store for Josh and Candy. Even before Josh dramatically breaks off his engagement to Linda at the altar, he is depicted as assuming the savior role for Candy. When Candy finally allows Josh to visit her in prison, she speaks to him of her spiritual awakening and says, \u201cIf you love the Lord, everything\u2019s going to work out for good for you. [I know] I believe that\u2019s true\u2026\u2018cause I\u2019ve gotta believe in something.\u201d Without hesitation, Josh steps into the role of savor, stating, \u201cYou can believe in me.\u201d At this point, Candy forgives Josh for their checkered history, and another Perry motif \u2013 forgiveness as a gateway to personal transformation \u2013 is fulfilled. Although Williams celebrates Hagar\u2019s willingness to trust her fate to God (239), she is also hesitant to extol Hagar as an exemplar of female liberation:<\/p>\n Womanist theology would be reticent to designate either Hagar or the Virgin Mary as models of liberated human beings since both women are always powerless and never able to take care of their own business or set their own agenda for their lives. Throughout most of the biblical story about her, Hagar was a slave. And when she was freed, she was freed into poverty and what looked like an impossible life-situation. (Williams 182)<\/p>\n When Candy is freed, she is freed into prosperity and what looks to be a restorative life-situation. However, like Williams\u2019s imagining of Hagar, who was at the mercy of divine powers to save her from the effects of human agents, Candy has thus far been unable to handle her business or set a meaningful agenda for her own life. In light of Josh\u2019s promises to \u201cget you outta here\u2026get you home\u2026help you kick that crap and get you off the streets\u2026\u201d it appears that Candy, like Hagar, will assume the persona of a rescued damsel in distress rather than a liberated, empowered woman. Both characters may serve to inspire the women who encounter them as proof of possible redemption from isolation and suffering, but women who encounter either of these narratives are unlikely to infer, based on the endings, that transformative redemption is possible to achieve on one\u2019s own. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Junior, Nyasha. \u201cTyler Perry Reads Scripture.\u201d Womanist and Black Feminist Responses to Tyler Perry\u2019s Productions. Ed. LeRhonda S. Manigault-Bryant, Tamura A. Lomax and Carol B. Duncan.<\/a> New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2014. 27-40. Print. <\/p>\n Madea Goes to Jail. Dir. Tyler Perry. Perf. Derek Luke, Keisha Knight Pulliam, Ion Overman, Viola Davis, Tyler Perry. Lionsgate, 2009. DVD.<\/p>\n Merritt, Bishetta D. and Melbourne S. Cummings. \u201cT
Nyasha Junior, an assistant professor of Old Testament at the Howard University School of Divinity, asserts that \u201cpopular media forms may be considered biblical in that they include veiled or explicit references to biblical texts, characters, and images\u201d (27). Junior suggests that artistic use of biblical themes in this way allows for the assumption on behalf of those consuming the media content that the content reflects biblical values. As such, I propose that the presence of a Hagar subtext in Madea Goes to Jail speaks to Perry\u2019s audience members as a variation on an empowering biblical theme, reflecting the triumph of a Hagar-esque character in a contemporary setting. Although Candy\u2019s narrative includes reference to a personal spiritual transformation toward the end of her time in jail, her happy ending features Perry\u2019s classic motif of salvation and a fresh start in the company of a good man, rather than in the arms of the Lord. <\/span><\/p>\n
\n, that Candy be removed as a threat and cast into jail. The contemporary version of the story, however, positions woman, not man, as the one with the power to eliminate the competition. In the biblical setting, Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael away at his wife\u2019s behest, but Josh is rendered powerless against Linda\u2019s actions in the modern telling. He has traded Candy\u2019s case away and is fully deprived of agency. Even though another colleague, Chuck, attempts to intercede on Candy\u2019s behalf, telling Linda, \u201cThis woman has done nothing to you\u2026he\u2019s not in love with her, he loves you,\u201d Linda remains unswayed. She has padded Candy\u2019s file with charges from a closed case in an attempt to levy more severe sentencing, and she is successful, earning Candy a prison sentence of 17 years. Candy has been effectively exiled.<\/span><\/p>\n
Good Deeds. Dir. Tyler Perry. Perf. Tyler Perry, Thandie Newton, Gabrielle Union. Lionsgate, 2012. DVD.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nhe African American Woman on Film.\u201d Interpreting Tyler Perry: Perspectives on Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality. Ed. Jamel Santa Cruze Bell and Ronald L. Jackson II.<\/a> New York: Routledge, 2014. 187-195. Print. <\/p>\n