Is Hollywood ready to produce a BIG BUDGT Epic film starring mostly black people??? (1 Viewer)

[Rex Bachmann]

Paul Sjordal wrote (post#56):


(1) Just curious: why are they sometimes referred to as "Blackamoors"?
(2) Let's see, how 'bout this?: "Whites happen to live on the (North) American continent, but that doesn't really make them American [since, of course, they hail ancestrally from Europe]."
(3) Again, "African" = Sub-Saharan African = "Black" ("Negro").

 

[Paul_Sjordal]

I'm talking culture, you're talking lawyerly technicalities.

America is a particularly loaded word and a poor comparison for your argument since it has multiple, dynamic meanings that simply don't apply to the words used to describe other continents.

If you mean "America" as in the political entity known as the United States of America (an immigrant nation, mind you), then yes, we are Americans through and through. However "America" also refers to continents. In that context we would be talking about cultures that predate the European invasion. In that context, if your ancestors came over on a boat or a plane, then no, you're not an American and neither am I.

Most of northern Africa was conqured by Arabs. The resulting civilizations were Arabic, regardless of what continent they happened to be on. This thread is a discussion on civilizations, cultures and peoples, not geographical technicalities.

 

[Les Samuel]

Gary_dee


Very interesting draft of your written ideas. Please keep at it.

 

[Norm]

Its not about Race its about money. African Americans only make up 12% of the population. Due the math!

 

[Lew Crippen]

It is about money Norm, but I am bound to observe that in order for your math to compute, it would mean that the remaining 88% of the population won’t go see films with primarily black casts.

Many of us in this thread (even those such as myself who believe that it will be hard to finance such a $150M film, believe that the right film would have an audience that would cross racial boundaries. As do most today.

 

[Norm]

You need to convince Hollywood, not me. I don't buy into Hollywoods version of the moving going public. If its a good movie they will come no matter who's in it.

 

[Gary->dee]

Thanks, Les.

I would hope that in this day and age, with hip hop being so popular and with what I feel is the need for essentially a modern-day black saga, that a big agency would see my story as being very viable. But who knows. I need to actually call them and touch bases on it.

I'm going to be conducting an experiment of sorts this year. I've got one "black" script that I've submitted to Derek Luke's agent and I'm almost finished with a "white" script that I'll be submitting to Nicole Kidman's people. One script can use a lot of urban music for the soundtrack and the other can use a lot of Scandinavian music. Two entirely different scripts and racial make-ups to the stories. One is mostly geared towards a domestic release while the other is catered much more to the international market. I'm curious to see which one garners the most interest and hopefully sells.

 

[Paul.S]

Les et al.:

Nice to see a three-page HTF discussion on this complicated, important topic.

Alvin G, I like your comment in your (excerpted) post #15:

Devil In A Blue Dress and the already-mentioned Eve's Bayou both come to my mind. But getting white auds to see these pics (partly for the sake of the critical acclaim you mention) is, pardon the pun, a horse of a different color. But even Ebert championed Bayou.

I reference those two posts as a lead-in to saying that, in addition to wanting to see epics of the nature Les mentions (anyone have any comments on a heretofore unmentioned pic, Hudlum?), I'm particularly interested in smarter, broader representations of middle/upper middle class black folks in dramas. JonZ mentions a terrific (albeit romantic comedy) example in his post #47, Love Jones. The pic's not about da man, the struggle or the 'hood. Rather, we get sexy, attractive Nia Long and Larenz Tate in a touching story about love, relationships and, as The Spinners say, "Games People Play." It's too bad that, for whatever reasons, writer-director Theodore Witcher has not done another film.

My broader critique (with no disrespect intended, Les) is that I'm less interested in essentialist ideas such as depicting historical events in movies that would inherently involve black actors than I am a) seeing more black folks behind the camera figuratively (in studio senior management executive suites . . . Richard Parsons should not be the only one!) and literally (directing films); and b) less race-specific/-conscious casting of black actors.

Two of my fave films provide instructive examples: The Shawshank Redemption and Crimson Tide. As most know, Stephen King neither wrote nor did Frank Darabont adapt Shawshank with a black actor in mind to play Red. But casting Morgan Freeman not only elevates the entire film because he's that kind of damn fine actor, but also because the interracial component of Red and Andy's relationship makes the themes of male friendship, platonic love between men and hope in that film all the more poignant. I like the fact that--other than keeping the short story's now-hilarious "Maybe because I'm Irish" line in the film--explicit issue is never made of Red's "race" or that difference between him and Andy. The film playfully acknowledges it . . . and promptly moves on. Its one of the things that makes the film timeless.

Some may know that Denzel was not first in line to play Tide's Mr. Hunter. Ironically enough, the man he 'lost' that 1992 Oscar to, Al Pacino, was. Again, I think the film is all the more poignant for Denzel's having been cast. In this instance, the script was changed slightly given D's casting: Tarantino's punch up adds the terrific bit about the color of Lippinzaner stallions at birth. But more importantly, the theme of Hackman's Capt. Ramsey representing the old Navy (like Aragorn tells D, "the Navy's all he's got--the Navy and that rat dog of his") and D representing a new Navy generation with a different, less hawkish attitude about war is made all the more rich, tense and poignant by casting Denzel in a non-race-specific role.

Be all that as it may, I'm also very happy that Antoine Fuqua, thanks to his mad skills and Jerry Bruckheimer, is directing a historical epic . . . with a cast toplined by attractive white folks, King Arthur. Here's hoping he becomes the second "black director" nominated for Best Director. Clive Owen and Gladiator knockoff issues aside, from the looks of the trailer, all the stunning elements are there. www.KingArthurMovie.com

Another issue at play here--one which Oprah discussed after Beloved was released--is the kinds of subject matter that people are more comfortable seeing presented in a dark room full of strangers (theatrically) versus at home in their own living room (on TV). This came back to mind when I read the numbers on Antoine Fisher grossing more on DVD in its first few days of release than it did in its entire theatrical run.

Good thread.

-p

 

[Lloyd White]

I second that Fuqua has mad skillz. That ending to Tears of the Sun was absolutely breathtakingly done. Then again, I always had a soft sport for directors who can do action really really well.

 

[Clem]

If this is an all important "milestone" and is sadly underrepresented in hollywood why bitch just at "white hollywood" Why not have Oprah Winfrey and/or Robert Johnson jump in and get it done?? They certainly have the connections and financial clout to do it..........

Not that they are the only two AA's with considerable wealth and earning power.

 

[John_Berger]

Clem, I was thinking the same type of thing. I don't understand why it is so important for such a movie to be made. I asked this question many posts back and conveniently no one decided to answer it.

The release of an all-black epic movie simply is not going to be as historically or politically important as were, for example, the actions of Dr. King or Rosa Parks; yet to look at not only the title of this thread but the passion for what it asks, you'd think that there is some great injustice currently being performed by not having such a movie made or that some oppressive wall will crumble at its release and acceptance by the movie-going public. I just don't understand why this has such an "important" label as it does.

Holadem! Buddy! Help me out here! :frowning:

 

[Paul.S]

Lloyd:

Well, part of me wants to simply say, "if you have to ask the question, you wouldn't understand the answer."

But the importance and complexity of the issue deserves more than such dismissive pithiness.

Although, per my post #68 above, I am more interested in broader black representations in Hollywood film and television than "just" a big budget epic, the issue Les raises resonates enough with me to want to offer a responsive comment.

Although there may not be "some great injustice currently being performed by not having such a movie made" and most would agree "that some oppressive wall will [NOT] crumble at its release" (but I give you two points for rhetorical grandeur there, John), I trust you would agree that it is painfully obvious that the playing field in Hollywood is simply not level regarding the issue of race/ethnicity.

I think one of the reasons that the question was raised has to do with the sociocultural and psychosexual global power of the film medium. I'm more interested in the complicated reasons such a film has NOT been made than I am critiquing whether or not the financing, production, distribution and exhibition of such a film would make any difference in the grander (racial) order of things.

I would hope that anyone asking "why make such a film?" is also taking note of how--even if, say, Troy flops--Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom and Wolfgang Peterson will all still get more work in Hollywood. That is much less often the case for black actors, writers, directors and producers in this business, if they're lucky enough to be working in the first place. If we are to understand this issue and each other as moviegoers and humans being (cue the score!), the reasons why that is so should be far more important than questioning the reasons why such a film as Les is describing should be made.

-p

 

[Kevin Alexander]

Many will probably have me to burn in hell for what I am about to say, but as black people, we are currently making our bed w/ the bumper crop of shoot-um-up gangsta movies, booty-shakin' club movies, and the utter dreck that panders to the base instinct and lowest common denominator that black producers push out like drugs and black audiences form block long lines to see (see my thread on the movie "My Baby's Daddy"). Personally, I see the cry by some for an epic-type film w/ an all/mostly black cast as a desire to see a departure from the current stereotypes of blacks in film - stereotypes that in alot of cases are perpetuated by black actors/actresses and producers themselves. There is plenty of blame to go around, but I blame the shortage of compelling films featuring black casts on the lack of creativity on the part of black writers and producers.

Everything nowadays features a tired 'hood story w/ a heavy hip hop soundtrack that taps into every stereotype imaginable. All of these movies are like a bad copy, of a copy, of a copy. Where's the originality?...Where's the innovative thinking?...Where's the compelling storyline? Bad self-exploitation movies such as these DO NOT represent blacks as a whole and personally, I think that most black people yearn for something better than to see images of themselves portrayed as comic-relief bafoons on the big screen.

When some of the black population see well made movies such as the LOTR Trilogy that feature an all white cast (understandably due to the background of the story and not by some personal preference), there is probably a strong yearning among black movie lovers to see black actors/actresses in charming, well-loved roles that are well received and that appeal to the masses. Unfortunately w/ the current trend, I don't see this happening anytime soon. I wish I could elaborate on why, but it would probably incite the anger of more than a few. ***Wow, I wonder if I'll be able to respect myself for this rant in the morning!

 

[Les Samuel]

John for starters you may want to revisit my initial post again. The movie I am referring to does not have to be factual it could be fictional. Think out of the box, it could have facts and fiction like many films do today. Why is it important that it be made. Not only is the public ready but the public needs to understand that there's more in the experience of being a person of color than The Parkers, or XXX2 with IceCube.

America is improving but mostly we are being shown only two sides of the hexagon when there are more to be shown.

 

[Kevin Alexander]

There are many in the black community who absolutely despise Robert Johnson because of the role that some perceive him in playing in the dumbing down of black youth w/ the endless barrage of booty-shakin' videos that was aired virtually non-stop on BET for many years. Many feel that BET could've played a more positive and involved role in black culture, education, politics, as well as black entertainment; but instead chose the black exploitation route. Count me in as one who has no respect whatsoever for Robert Johnson, and feels that he has nothing at all to offer.

 

[Clem]

Paul,
I appreciate the thought out reply.



So why in your opinion did this not do well?

 

[Kevin Alexander]

OK, I'm really gonna burn in hell for this one:

No offense or disrespect meant, but the reason that black films don't do well w/ the white moviegoing public is that many moviegoing whites just don't care about black culture. And IMO, why should they? Look at what's been served up over the years...mostly movies that whites cannot relate to at all (club scene, exploitation, and 'hood movies) - movies that unconformist blacks despise. The only epic-like film w/ a black cast that will do well is something original and innovative that transcends racial lines and appeals to the masses...and this movie will only catch on after the word of mouth buzz spreads.

 

[John_Berger]

But it still comes down to the question of does it really matter if all of the sides are shown? Why is there no concern for an all-Asian movie (made in the U.S.)? Why is there no concern for an all-Indian movie? Will any such movie really, really matter in the grand scheme of humanity?

I'll will say this ... it is SO refreshing to be able to have this kind of conversation where everyone is behaving themselves and all sides are being brought out respectfully. In this hyper-sensitive, PC world, this is a rarity.

EDIT: You know, I really need to start using the spell-checker. :rolleyes

 

[John_Berger]

Not just black people, Kevin. This is exactly what I've been talking about. Break the stereotype, make a movie that has appeal to everyone, and the crowds will come.

 

[Holadem]

No english! No english!

--
H