Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 
"... in fact if they could program a DirectorBot3000 to make all their films for them they'd do that too."
= Brett Ratner
Not to derail but there's a lot of strange decisions going on in Hollywood. Take The First Wives Club
A budget of $30 million and a worldwide gross of about $181.5 million and then there's the DVD/Video and TV rights to add to that and yet there is to date, no sequel. Looking purely at the economics in isolation from any artistic merit (sorry I'm doing this), it would have made sense to make a serious attempt to at least try and make one more given the return on the first movie.
According to Goldie Hawn:
However, as Hawn declared in a 2006 interview with New York Daily News, Paramount Pictures declined the trio's services due to their demand of an increase in fees: "I got a call from the head of the studio, who said, 'Let's try to make it work. But I think we should all do it for the same amount of money.' Now, if there were three men that came back to do a sequel, they would have paid them three times their salary at least."
Of course there's always more going on than we hear about but you really have to wonder what was going on there in the decision making process when a sequel would have had an excellent chance of turning some kind of profit if it was done halfway properly and costs weren't too much beyond the first one (which paying the stars of the first film more in itself wouldn't have done). I know, problems of a group of multimillionaires and all that but purely on an economic basis, it seems like a project that had less risk than most for the studio.
= Brett Ratner
That's who I meant by 'Ole Shrimp Dick' ;)
Of course there's always more going on than we hear about but you really have to wonder what was going on there in the decision making process when a sequel would have had an excellent chance of turning some kind of profit if it was done halfway properly and costs weren't too much beyond the first one (which paying the stars of the first film more in itself wouldn't have done). I know, problems of a group of multimillionaires and all that but purely on an economic basis, it seems like a project that had less risk than most for the studio.
It's almost as if Hollywood studio decision makers have odious worldviews extending beyond pure avarice that effect their decision making processes.
It's almost as if Hollywood studio decision makers have odious worldviews extending beyond pure avarice that effect their decision making processes.
I have this theory (which I hasten to add is complete guesswork plus things I think I heard) which goes something like this:
I heard that a lot of these companies could actually make a lot more money if they closed down their film making business and used their resources in other areas, or possibly even just selling off or developing some of their studio properties into real estate. Possibly if anything, it's a safer investment even just sticking their money in the bank and collecting the interest. However, there's some prestige in making movies and mixing with famous people and the publicity and the like you wouldn't get from making widgets, hence they keep them for that reason
However, I guess that means it's not just the money in all cases and as far as they're concerned. Spike Lee may well be right that Inside Man 2 could turn a tidy profit but a) There's no absolute guarantee of that and b) If enough of the power brokers don't like him, they just might think from their point of view that he's just not worth the hassle of dealing with him.
After all, they can still make movies with the people they do like hanging out with and they could put the money that Inside Man 2 would have cost and make more widgets which may well make them more money with less of the risk and also with none of the experience they don't like of having to deal with Spike.
In the old days, Hollywood tended to blame the public for not wanting to accept films with black casts.
Yes, but Hollywood programs the public's tastes. After a while they get used to seeing all white casts and reject anything else out of instinct. It's like conditioning a dog. Hollywood feels no need to break this cycle because it could mean taking "risks"...God forbid.
Yes, but Hollywood programs the public's tastes. After a while they get used to seeing all white casts and reject anything else out of instinct. It's like conditioning a dog. Hollywood feels no need to break this cycle because it could mean taking "risks"...God forbid.
True.
I'm actually starting to come to the belief that movies are stagnating and becoming repetitive and uninteresting because of the incessant "whitness" in film. Even the supposed "quality" films just feel uninspired to me these days (this has to be the dullest Oscar season in years). Just about every major release, is about white people, from the perspective of white people, about the problems white people have. And if it features any minorities, it's usually about how white people relate to them (ie The Help).
I see films like The Descendants, and think "oh goody, another indie sensibility flick and some middle class white family and their problems". Sundance Film Festival practically exists to churn out these films.
One way to spice things up and make films a bit more interesting, is widening the casting, creative and storytelling pool. No just for blacks, but for Latinos, Asians etc. There's so much stuff out there to cover that isn't strictly about white people, and I do believe there is a growing hunger and appetite for quality, studio driven material about non-white stories and characters. I loved that Apocalypto was a badass, expensive historical action film....that was actually about the Mayans, and not about how white people related to the Mayans. Pretty ironic that Mel Gibson, often derided as a racist prick, is one of the few major white directors who had the balls to make a big scale historical epic (on his own dime, no less) without any white people for audiences to "relate to". And it made money.
I hate how Hollywood always ignores these success or finds excuses to dismiss them as an anomaly.
Speaking of movies that have white people learning about life from non-white people... I saw a trailer for THIS film before Red Tails...
As much as I admire that cast... Eeeeeeugh...
Wow, that's just... wow.
On a semi-related note, Dileep Rao was in massive blockbusters Avatar and Inception (and, to a lesser extent, Drag Me To Hell). How did Hollywood not rush to cast him in everything afterwards simply because of his visibility? Why do I get the feeling somebody like Shane West was on more casting lists in 2012?
Dileep Rao is awesome. He will forever have my love for Drag Me to Hell.
At least Dev Patel is getting some kind of work.
Spike Lee is angry? I demand a Kevin Smith is Bitter thread and a Brett Ratner is a Hack thread.
True.
I'm actually starting to come to the belief that movies are stagnating and becoming repetitive and uninteresting because of the incessant "whitness" in film. Even the supposed "quality" films just feel uninspired to me these days (this has to be the dullest Oscar season in years). Just about every major release, is about white people, from the perspective of white people, about the problems white people have. And if it features any minorities, it's usually about how white people relate to them (ie The Help).
I see films like The Descendants, and think "oh goody, another indie sensibility flick and some middle class white family and their problems". Sundance Film Festival practically exists to churn out these films.
One way to spice things up and make films a bit more interesting, is widening the casting, creative and storytelling pool. No just for blacks, but for Latinos, Asians etc. There's so much stuff out there to cover that isn't strictly about white people, and I do believe there is a growing hunger and appetite for quality, studio driven material about non-white stories and characters. I loved that Apocalypto was a badass, expensive historical action film....that was actually about the Mayans, and not about how white people related to the Mayans. Pretty ironic that Mel Gibson, often derided as a racist prick, is one of the few major white directors who had the balls to make a big scale historical epic (on his own dime, no less) without any white people for audiences to "relate to". And it made money.
I hate how Hollywood always ignores these success or finds excuses to dismiss them as an anomaly.
I agree with everything you're saying. I love film, I love all movies just for being movies, but as I get older I cannot continue to ignore this glaring racial hole I see in mainstream filmmaking, even indie film. I will never reject a film because it has an all white cast, it is what it is, my beef is with those power brokers who continue to put their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalala" as if the world isn't majority ethnic. The irony is that whites are a minority on the planet, yet they control the media outlets, whether it be film or television, magazines or radio. But this shouldn't matter, I really could care less who controls things, I'd just like to see a little less blatant ignorance.
The Fast and the Furious movies are good examples of racially diverse casts in big budget filmmaking that doesn't smother the audience in racial stereotypes...they're all great drivers with distinct personalities and backgrounds. I would actually like to see more films that feature racially diverse casts but are not genre driven/directed at urban audiences. They had a great chance of pulling this off with He's Just Not That Into You, but instead we got this:
Are you fucking kidding me???
The tragedy is, films like this could make so much more money if they added a little color to the mix. There are plenty of black, asian and latino yuppies in today's society.
Repeating a post of mine because it fits here as well:
From the book "Josh Harnett definitely wants to do this ... true stories from a life in the screen trade" by Bruce Beresford.
"I receive a message from the production office saying the African-American actress is not acceptable to play the hiker. I object, saying her skin colour is not an issue - she's just the most suitable choice for the role. I'm then told that it's 'hard to sell films around the world with black actors'. Could this possibly be true? In 2005!! And what about the fact that Morgan Freeman is playing the leading role? My objections are overruled. I have to find a white girl for the part."
and to add:
"Boaz Davidson is adamant about not using the African-American girl in the role of the hiker, despite my pleading. The second choice, Emily Deschanel, is now in a TV show and not available. I'll send them the tape of the American girl, Megan Dodds, I saw in the play in London."
At this point in his career, Bruce Beresford had made about two dozen films, at least a few had made a lot of money and he'd gotten at least a couple of Academy Award nominations. Even then, at this stage of his career, he still actually had trouble getting paid on time (or at all) for the projects that did get off the ground, let alone getting the ones he really wanted to do past the script stage. The film described above was called "The Contract", which he really didn't want to do and given that just to pay the two stars alone (Morgan Freeman and John Cusack) was at least $12 million and the worldwide gross was under $5.5 million (its US cinema gross was $0), it's fair to say the film probably bombed big time.
So maybe at least some of the problems Spike is having are common to a lot of people and it's just not always about him, just throwing that out there.
I ask these questions from my limited Caucasian corner, so I apologize if anything offends (not my intention)...
1] How does the black community view the family friendly comedies of Ice Cube, Eddie Murphy, and Cedric the Entertainer, etc?
2] Is the black community interested in making low-budget, smart, and interesting "genre" movies like MEMENTO, SUPER, or TIMECRIMES, etc. I ask that, because the majority of the afro-centric stuff I see coming out on vid, tv, or theaters seems to revolve around urban life, family reunions, or romance. Is that a financing/distribution thing, demographic thing (I doubt that as many of the black guys I know love the same kind of movies I do), or a talent thing (see quote way below)? I ask #2 specifically, because while I love a great comedy or drama, it's the genre stuff that tends to cross cultural borders really well (see the Asian film market). And a bunch of that stuff, if done smart, can be made on the cheap. Course, importing such a glut of Asian films hasn't really created any extra Asian casting in America, but there is a market for those movies. Whites and blacks alike buy Asian films (martial arts, anime, horror). And no, crap like VAMPIRE ASSASSIN and BLOODZ VS WOLVES doesn't count (because they're terrible and not very original). I like to watch anything that has a focus on visual storytelling, regardless of race,
3] Is there film self-segregating (diversity does not equal co-operation apparently) going on? Most ethnic films I see (on the covers at least) appear to be fairly monochromatic. Across all races. There is an "us/them" thing there from my POV. Arguably, in Asia, most of the population is Asian, unlike the melting pot that is here in the US... so more understandable. And I'm not looking to blame the black film community here, nor do I really expect black film-makers to create roles specifically for whites. Just an observation. Why does this happen? Less blacks in Hollywood careers? No one is comfortable being a minority (see quote below).
4] Being a father of a seven year old daughter, I'm noticing much more mixed ethnicity in children's programming than there use to be. But less in primetime MAJOR network sitcoms. With more tv channels, I'm noticing shows of minority ethnicities drifting to alternate minor networks (whether in syndication or new shows).
Agreed on... FAST & THE FURIOUS. It ignores race for the most part, mixes it up, and is about a subject matter that crosses borders (fast cars, explosions, hot women).
This was an interesting thread:
http://www.chud.com/community/t/97505/the-lack-of-african-american-characters-in-animation
And an interesting post:
Less Black film-makers (across all disciplines) than whites in general, due to the careers that are pursued and encouraged? Course, even if there were more black film-makers, they would still need greenlights and money from mostly-white execs in Hollywood. So even though there is a diversity in America, there is probably not a big diversity in film (compare to sports or music). Therefore, it has to be a conscious effort for white Hollywood to create black roles and greenlight afro-centric films, I'm guessing. White Joe Cornish and Danny Boyle, and Disney for that matter, directing films about an ethnicity (other than Caucasians) leads to other issues as well, due to an outsider's potentially insensitive depiction. What's the proper route to take?
Insightful post.
I ask these questions from my limited Caucasian corner, so I apologize if anything offends (not my intention)...
1] How does the black community view the family friendly comedies of Ice Cube, Eddie Murphy, and Cedric the Entertainer, etc?
2] Is the black community interested in making low-budget, smart, and interesting "genre" movies like MEMENTO, SUPER, or TIMECRIMES, etc. I ask that, because the majority of the afro-centric stuff I see coming out on vid, tv, or theaters seems to revolve around urban life, family reunions, or romance. Is that a financing/distribution thing, demographic thing (I doubt that as many of the black guys I know love the same kind of movies I do), or a talent thing (see quote way below)? I ask #2 specifically, because while I love a great comedy or drama, it's the genre stuff that tends to cross cultural borders really well (see the Asian film market). And a bunch of that stuff, if done smart, can be made on the cheap. Course, importing such a glut of Asian films hasn't really created any extra Asian casting in America, but there is a market for those movies. Whites and blacks alike buy Asian films (martial arts, anime, horror). And no, crap like VAMPIRE ASSASSIN and BLOODZ VS WOLVES doesn't count (because they're terrible and not very original). I like to watch anything that has a focus on visual storytelling, regardless of race,
3] Is there film self-segregating (diversity does not equal co-operation apparently) going on? Most ethnic films I see (on the covers at least) appear to be fairly monochromatic. Across all races. There is an "us/them" thing there from my POV. Arguably, in Asia, most of the population is Asian, unlike the melting pot that is here in the US... so more understandable. And I'm not looking to blame the black film community here, nor do I really expect black film-makers to create roles specifically for whites. Just an observation. Why does this happen? Less blacks in Hollywood careers? No one is comfortable being a minority (see quote below).
4] Being a father of a seven year old daughter, I'm noticing much more mixed ethnicity in children's programming than there use to be. But less in primetime MAJOR network sitcoms. With more tv channels, I'm noticing shows of minority ethnicities drifting to alternate minor networks (whether in syndication or new shows).
Agreed on... FAST & THE FURIOUS. It ignores race for the most part, mixes it up, and is about a subject matter that crosses borders (fast cars, explosions, hot women).
This was an interesting thread:
http://www.chud.com/community/t/97505/the-lack-of-african-american-characters-in-animation
And an interesting post:
Less Black film-makers (across all disciplines) than whites in general, due to the careers that are pursued and encouraged? Course, even if there were more black film-makers, they would still need greenlights and money from mostly-white execs in Hollywood. So even though there is a diversity in America, there is probably not a big diversity in film (compare to sports or music). Therefore, it has to be a conscious effort for white Hollywood to create black roles and greenlight afro-centric films, I'm guessing. White Joe Cornish and Danny Boyle, and Disney for that matter, directing films about an ethnicity (other than Caucasians) leads to other issues as well, due to an outsider's potentially insensitive depiction. What's the proper route to take?
1) Living in Hollywood, most of my friends are white simply because of the industry, though there are several black and ethnic friends in our social circle. And many of the people I grew up with are black and I still communicate with them regularly, so this has given me a pretty broad spectrum to work with. Most blacks I know adore those comedies. But most of them are not film fanatics, so they like pretty much anything Hollywood dishes out, especially if it has a black comedian(s) in the lead because they feel they can relate to that person. The ethnic film fanatics I know don't particularly care for those comedies unless they're actually good films.
2) I'm glad you asked this question because it's been on my mind for quite some time. I have to preface this response with a question though. Would a black audience buy a movie like SCREAM or I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER with an all black cast? The answer is, currently, no, because whenever many urban blacks go see a horror film, they yell at the screen at the characters when they do stupid things ("oh, don't go down that hallway!!!", etc) I honestly don't believe blacks would buy other blacks making the same mistakes white characters make in horror films. Maybe they would, but I think they would reject it out of instinct and have a negative opinion of the film, no matter how good it is. Black genre films tend to be hood/gangster/crime flicks, pleasing the urban audience because it's something they can relate to (which is a scary fact in and of itself). There are some DTV black horror flicks with Snoop Dog in the lead I believe, and probably some others, but I haven't seen them. Black films tend to skew toward the low brow, non intelligent variety and deal with realistic problems (alcoholism, crime, drugs, teen pregnancy, comedies joking about "black issues" as a tension release etc). Something like a black MEMENTO or TIME CRIMES I think would blindside a black audience initially because they tend to reject anything outside of their experience (talk to your average black person about time travel or short term memory loss or aliens and you'd probably get looked at sideways and laughed at, and when I say "average" I mean blacks who go to the movies regularly). I suppose they would accept it over time, because it's merely conditioning. This is something I've been yearning to fix in some far off future when I'm in a position to make a majority black film with sci-fi elements (though I have no intention of making an ALL BLACK film simply because that's still part of the problem of exclusion)
3) Absolutely is there an exclusion mentality among blacks and black films. And this is a problem for me. I honestly don't know how you can whine about wanting equality, and then embrace totally black content, adding to the very problem you're complaining about. My wish is equal opportunity casting. A film, especially a genre film, is already an unrealistic depiction of reality and targeted toward maximum profit, so why not splash the canvas with color, covering all your bases? This seems obvious to me, and also totally fair and giving more chances to ethnic actors and bridging the gap between races. There are black doctors, lawyers, yuppies, teachers, cops, astronauts, etc, so why not depict these roles in films, instead of white washing the screen in (I believe) a grossly unrealistic depiction of reality? Though you could argue something like He's Just Not That Into You is realistic because white people tend to gravitate toward other whites when it comes to social circles, but to me this misses the point, since your goal is profit.
What about directors like Steve McQueen? His two films, Hunger and Shame, are really not racial films, yet he is a black auteur. Or does his Britishness/Indie sensibility cancel this out? It might well be true that black cinema must necessarily be defined by race, but it seems clear that societally, we may be at the point where a black artist's work wouldn't automatically be classified as "black" art. Lee's made a good number of movies that aren't specifically black (Inside Man, 25th Hour). Of course, McQueen's next film is a period film entitled Twelve Years a Slave, so clearly he has some interest in the black experience in America.
There's certainly going to continue to be films aimed for racial demographics, and I don't necessarily see anything wrong with claptrap like He's Just Not That Into You casting white people in it (it's surely not getting a lot of ad dollars spent in the inner city). But even Tyler Perry casts Kathy Bates every now and then.
What about directors like Steve McQueen? His two films, Hunger and Shame, are really not racial films, yet he is a black auteur. Or does his Britishness/Indie sensibility cancel this out? It might well be true that black cinema must necessarily be defined by race, but it seems clear that societally, we may be at the point where a black artist's work wouldn't automatically be classified as "black" art. Lee's made a good number of movies that aren't specifically black (Inside Man, 25th Hour). Of course, McQueen's next film is a period film entitled Twelve Years a Slave, so clearly he has some interest in the black experience in America.
There's certainly going to continue to be films aimed for racial demographics, and I don't necessarily see anything wrong with claptrap like He's Just Not That Into You casting white people in it (it's surely not getting a lot of ad dollars spent in the inner city). But even Tyler Perry casts Kathy Bates every now and then.
McQueen I'm following very closely because of the above mentioned reasons. He's an example of the direction film should be headed...color blind.
And I don't have a problem with white people in She's Just Not That Into You, I have an issue with every single main character being purely white bread, it's just like my problem with all black casts... I just don't see the point of that kind of all or nothing attitude especially when we live in such a diverse culture. I don't acknowledge "white problems" and "black problems", I see problems in general, especially in today's kind of economic climate.
Is it wrong and insensitive of me that I kind of like the idea of Spike being frothy with rage going into Oldboy? For the film's sake, I mean.
I thought the Wachowski Brothers really had a great stab at non-tokenistic multi-racial casting with the Matrix sequels. If you look at it, probably a slight majority of the main/secondary roles in the sequels were played by African-American actors, and their race wasn't even a factor. And it didn't hurt the bottom line one bit, as the films were massive hits. Shame that the sequels themselves were poorly written and ultimately not a patch on the original, but you gotta give the Wachowski's credit for that level of inclusitivity in their casting.
Almost makes you wish some of the "big gun directors" today, like Chris Nolan, would follow their lead. I know Nolan vetoed Will Smith for the lead in Inception (not sure why, as he could have played that part as well as Dicaprio), but did practcally almost every character have to be cast caucasian?
And speaking of Will Smith, I think what he did with producing The Karate Kid remake, and putting his son Jaden in the lead, was something of a masterstroke. The lead was a black kid with no track record, yet the film made more money overseas (182 million) than it did in America. Hollywood keeps trying to claim it prefers white leads, because blacks don't do well internationally. Hollywood studios will do anything to dismiss it as an anomaly ("oh, Jackie Chan was in it" or "he's Will Smith's son. No normal black actor kid could have carried that movie").
I hear Jay-Z and Smith are teaming up to produce a version of "Annie" with Willow Smith to star. And that'll probably work. If you've got a recognisable "property" like Karate Kid or Annie, it does not matter what color you choose to cast. There's no risk in casting the new Robocop remake as a black actor. Or even James Bond as a black actor.. The properties will sell regardless, as Karate Kid proved. I think there could easilybe a dozen (or more) black A-listers (with international box office appeal, male and female) in Hollywood within the next 2 years, if Hollywood really wanted them to exist. The fact that they seem to want to limit it to Denzel and Will Smith (or Smith's kid's, because he's in a position to promote them himself) is shameful and deliberate.
I wonder how much of Spike Lee's struggles within Hollywood have more to do with 1) his own racial attitudes and 2) the struggles any Artist has within the Hollywood system.
1) Steve McQueen, Ice Cube et all don't constantly get quoted saying how racist Hollywood is, how vicious Whitey is etc. Lee has also made Race relations, and a specific view of them, the theme for almost all of his films. As an example, here is Spike Lee on his own film Bamboozled: "I don't see why white people would watch this". If I'm a Suit in Hollywood, why the fuck would I want to be in business with someone who thinks I'm an asshole and irredeemable racist?
2) People forget no that Martin Scorcese had his years in the Wilderness. Peter Biskind recounts an incident where someone introduced Scorcese to a Studio Exec at a party, and Scorcese stated he was making a film based on Last Temptation of Christ. The Studio Exec literally laughed in his face and walked away. Eventually Marty started just making Studio films, albeit they are quality. But we aren't seeing any more Taxi Drivers, or New York New York.
I'd add that I think there is a much more insidious element at work here: Hollywood studio execs are the ultimate embodiment of Herd Mentality. In the early 90's there was a spate of "Gangster" films and it was predicted that this meant more Black films in general in the future. Then the trend ends. Just like we have seen a spate of Harry Potter wannabees, a spate of Shaky Cam action flicks, etc. Anything new or different is almost always dismissed or derided, unless it makes a Gagillion dollars. In which case it gets copied into the ground.
Wouldn't be too sure about McQueen. He made a lot of white people in Hollywood uncomfortable when he called out Hollywood for it's shamelful lack of casting minority actors in films. And this was only like two months ago, in one of those Oscar roundtable discussions for directors. McQueen was the only black guy in the room, made race casting an uncomfortable issue, and none of his fellow white directors wanted to even discuss it.
McQueen is more like Lee than you think. It's only because he's only two movies into his career, and has a much lower profile that people haven't seen how outspoken he's willing to be.
As for Ice Cube...who cares what he says or doesn't say. He's not a serious filmmaker. Just some guy happy to make lowbrow entertainment and get paid.
I'd love to see or read that roundtable. Link?
And I wouldn't dismiss Ice Cube, like I wouldn't dismiss Tyler Perry. Neither make films I seek out, but both make the films they want, and have an audience that appreciates them.
There are gonna be some interesting conversations about race and American film when Django Unchained drops, yep, you betcha.
Spike is like a lot of people: he doesn't go around all day pissed off about racism. I would suggest reading the lengthy interview David Breskin conducted with him in Inner Views. (The book also contains top-notch interviews with six other directors -- Lynch, Cronenberg, Coppola, Altman, Burton, and Eastwood -- so it's worth getting all around.) I also recommend his early making-of books tied in with She's Gotta Have It and Do the Right Thing. I think when people ask dumb questions, or questions having to do with racial inequity, sure, he's going to come off loud. Get him talking about other stuff and he's pretty engaging and even geeky. I loved reading about how, like, he saw a shot in some Prince video and got all excited about it and was all like "We have to do this in the film." Just the spongelike aspect of a young filmmaker sucking up inspiration wherever he finds it.
Visually he's bold and confident, but his luck with finding good material (and knowing when his own material needs editing) has been mixed. Bamboozled was outstanding until the exact point at which it became god-awful, which I would place at about an hour in. I think he's always had too much pride and cockiness to listen much when anyone, white or otherwise, dares to tell him "Spike, this just doesn't cohere."
It could be worse. He could be Matty Rich. (Which, I remember Spike around the time of Malcolm X being bemused about Matty Rich dissing him in the press. Rich saying "I ain't never gone to film school, I ain't got this, I ain't got that," and Spike saying "His film reflected that shit, too.")
I'd love to see or read that roundtable. Link?
And I wouldn't dismiss Ice Cube, like I wouldn't dismiss Tyler Perry. Neither make films I seek out, but both make the films they want, and have an audience that appreciates them.
We'll have to agree to disagree about Cube and Perry. McG and Uwe Boll make films they want, and have an audience that appreciates them, but I could care less what they have to say about anything in regards to film, because like Cube and Perry, they are both hacks that are basically in it for the money.
Here's the link to to the roundtable bit where McQueen GOES IN! It's hilarious. He literally calls out every other director in the room as to why they don't hire black or minority actors as leads. And they are all too chickenshit to talk about it. The guy has the potential to be as upfront and confrontational as Lee (but with an English accent).
Is it wrong and insensitive of me that I kind of like the idea of Spike being frothy with rage going into Oldboy? For the film's sake, I mean.
Honestly, I think Oldboy is going to be one of his best reviewed films of the last decade, alongside 25th Hour and Inside Man.
Critics just don't take well to his "black films" anymore, I've noticed. I thought Miracle At St Anna was an excellent film, but it got panned by critics. Yet he does a mainstream bank robbery film and an all-white cast 9/11 film, and critics are all over him. It's basically a hint to Spike...."you've made your point about black disenfranchisement. Now entertain us with other stuff".
I do think if Lee had simply decided to be a "genre" director (like Nolan or Fincher) with no particular emphasis of race issues, with his style and ability as a director....he'd be the most popular and respected director of his generation. Imagine Lee putting his talents to Batman or Fight Club. He'd be idolised by the same geeks that disdain him.
I thought the Wachowski Brothers really had a great stab at non-tokenistic multi-racial casting with the Matrix sequels. If you look at it, probably a slight majority of the main/secondary roles in the sequels were played by African-American actors, and their race wasn't even a factor. And it didn't hurt the bottom line one bit, as the films were massive hits. Shame that the sequels themselves were poorly written and ultimately not a patch on the original, but you gotta give the Wachowski's credit for that level of inclusitivity in their casting.
Almost makes you wish some of the "big gun directors" today, like Chris Nolan, would follow their lead. I know Nolan vetoed Will Smith for the lead in Inception (not sure why, as he could have played that part as well as Dicaprio), but did practcally almost every character have to be cast caucasian?
And speaking of Will Smith, I think what he did with producing The Karate Kid remake, and putting his son Jaden in the lead, was something of a masterstroke. The lead was a black kid with no track record, yet the film made more money overseas (182 million) than it did in America. Hollywood keeps trying to claim it prefers white leads, because blacks don't do well internationally. Hollywood studios will do anything to dismiss it as an anomaly ("oh, Jackie Chan was in it" or "he's Will Smith's son. No normal black actor kid could have carried that movie").
I hear Jay-Z and Smith are teaming up to produce a version of "Annie" with Willow Smith to star. And that'll probably work. If you've got a recognisable "property" like Karate Kid or Annie, it does not matter what color you choose to cast. There's no risk in casting the new Robocop remake as a black actor. Or even James Bond as a black actor.. The properties will sell regardless, as Karate Kid proved. I think there could easilybe a dozen (or more) black A-listers (with international box office appeal, male and female) in Hollywood within the next 2 years, if Hollywood really wanted them to exist. The fact that they seem to want to limit it to Denzel and Will Smith (or Smith's kid's, because he's in a position to promote them himself) is shameful and deliberate.
Great post. Yeah, the plentiful ethnic casting in the Matrix sequels was wonderful, but not surprising, as the film is basically kung fu with sci-fi/philisophical elements. Kung fu is pretty huge with the urban market. Not to mention they shot large portions of the sequels in Oakland (where I grew up) and that city is mostly african american.
And I think this plays into there being no blacks in Inception, as it has no kung fu, drugs, or other urban elements for the studio to bother casting enthic actors in order to pull in more of that audience. I just dont understand that kind of thinking though, as it seems to me you could have easily replaced (though I do love him) Joseph Gordon Levitt with somebody like Anthony Mackie or Tyrese Gibson or John Cho and got the same vibe from the performance, while pulling even more of an urban or ethnic audience.
I think it might have been Chris Rock who joked that they only allow two famous black celebrities at a time or something. Will Smith and Denzel are pretty much it as far as acceptable A-list big budget actors. I can actually live with that. It's the lower tier actors casting that I find disgustingly white washed.
A black James Bond? Are you kidding? Can't have a black man fucking all those white women.
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby
In the early 90's there was a spate of "Gangster" films and it was predicted that this meant more Black films in general in the future.
I never understood that, because to me all it did was reinforce this view of blacks as savages or in desperate need of saving from a violent culture. Menace 2 Society is great, but I never saw a positive end result of that huge influx of urban/hood films. But the Hughes Brothers started making more neutral genre fare with Dead Presidents and From Hell, but no one else really followed suit in terms of widening the casting in films like that to include blacks. To me, you need somebody to make E.T. with a black cast in order for that race to be taken seriously.
Wouldn't be too sure about McQueen. He made a lot of white people in Hollywood uncomfortable when he called out Hollywood for it's shamelful lack of casting minority actors in films. And this was only like two months ago, in one of those Oscar roundtable discussions for directors. McQueen was the only black guy in the room, made race casting an uncomfortable issue, and none of his fellow white directors wanted to even discuss it.
I've seen that roundtable, but what I read into those reactions was more the other white directors being too riddled with white guilt to say anything, rather than any kind of dismissal of the issue. They all genuinely seemed bothered by it. But none of those guys really has the clout to insert blacks into significant parts into their films. I love Thomas Hayden Church, but I could easily see him having been replaced by somebody lile Wesley Snipes in "Sideways". The late 90s, early 2000s really was a hopeful time for more racially diverse casting...witness Snipes being cast as a sophisticated commercial director in Mike Figgis' "One Night Stand"...I wouldn't be surprised if that part was written for a white actor, but Snipes killed, and didn't "negroid" the part at all. Same with Don Cheadle in Boogie Nights, happily paired with the very white Melora Walters and giving her a mixed baby with no flinch in the storytelling. Hell, same with Sam Jackson and Walters in Anderson's earlier "Hard Eight".
Sadly, you just don't see that much today at all. I mean there was one token black in "Alien"...cut to 35 years later and "Prometheus" features just one black actor? After 35 years??? To me that's insane. Again, I'm not wanting to plaster films with blacks, but some balance to offset the obvious white washing please, for God sake.
Man, I missed some great discussion.
A black James Bond? Are you kidding? Can't have a black man fucking all those white women.
Soderbergh gets on the project. Casts Lexington Steele as Bond. Instant authenticity.
We'll have to agree to disagree about Cube and Perry. McG and Uwe Boll make films they want, and have an audience that appreciates them, but I could care less what they have to say about anything in regards to film, because like Cube and Perry, they are both hacks that are basically in it for the money.
Here's the link to to the roundtable bit where McQueen GOES IN! It's hilarious. He literally calls out every other director in the room as to why they don't hire black or minority actors as leads. And they are all too chickenshit to talk about it. The guy has the potential to be as upfront and confrontational as Lee (but with an English accent).
Well I wouldn't really care what Cube or Perry had to say about the content they produce, but both sure know the business side of things. Sneer at that all you want, but they are successful.
The interesting thing about that clip is, no one really has an explanation for why there aren't more Blacks in films. McQueen seems too intellectually honest to just say "racism"; he seems bewildered. And the rest of the group probably never even thought of the issue until the interviewer brought it up.
Just realized reading through this thread: my (current) favorite TV shows are The Wire, Battlestar Galactica and now I going through Deep Space 9. All of which feature large multi-racial casts. I'm pretty slow to pick up on current shows: is there a similar Lack of Black on TV?
I'd say probably in terms of leads, though they do end up filling in the supporting characters roles in ensemble casts. Maybe y'all should have watched Undercovers.
I also noticed that there seem to be a distinct lack of East Asians on Alcatraz, even though it's set in San Francisco. At least The Mentalist has Tim Kang.
I don't know if it's fair to add Steve McQueen to this discussion. No one sees his movies! And among those films fans, how many of them know he's black? As if his famous name wasn't enough of a distraction.
You can't compare him to Lee, or even the Hughes brothers, or anyone from that generation. Because the entertainment landscape was a bit more narrow, major studios were making "Juice," they were making "Above The Rim." You could get a studio to go all-in on a low-budgeted actioner like "Surviving The Game." And for the most part, these movies were making money. Lee also had major studio support, and while he was tackling uncommercial material, often with uncommercial results, he was a more dynamic, exciting filmmaker than McQueen. Whomever said above that Lee could tackle the blockbusters was correct - he's always had the natural talent and filmmaking intensity to make those broad ideas sing, and "Inside Man" was probably the tip of the iceberg as far as that goes.
It's early as far as McQueen, and while I'm glad he's getting recognition, and some serious casting beef on his new movie, he's not a legit name, and maybe just a tier above someone like Dee Rees. Glad he got to bring the issue up during that roundtable, though.
Also, I say this with a heavy heart, but "Undercovers" was terrible. But I watched!
Well I think the McQueen addition was fine, because it lead to the roundtable and the problem he brought up about a white washed Hollywood. I certainly never intended to compare him to Lee. But I wouldn't mind the thread dovetailing into indie territory seeing as how Lee has made more indies than studio films. I think we're talking about not only the popular side of the totem pole, but the whole totem pole itself.
^^^^
I think McQueen, after Hunger and Shame, is easily the most respected black director in the buisness now, after Lee. Yes, he's still a niche/arthouse director, but it's pretty obvious that he's headed in the direction of bigger budgets, starrier casts and bigger material. His next film wiill star not just Fassbender and Chiwetel Ejiofor, but Brad Pitt, one of the biggest movie stars in the world.
Because of his burgeoning reputation in the arthouse scene, he'll be given opportunities for those big Oscar baiting, all-star cast films. He won't neccesarily turn around and make a 150 million dollar superhero movie, but I think he'll soon be making films that people see, because his reputation is building at a really speedy pace. I don't think Dee Rees is remotely near where McQueen is. Because McQueen has succesfully made films that are basically about the experiences of white people (and possible because he's British/European as well), he's not tyypecast as a "black director" in Hollywood (wheras someone like Rees is and will be. She's more likely to end up an even less succesful version of Kasi Lemmons). McQueen has all the white A-listers looking for a bit of artistic credibility wanting to work with him. He's very "hot" right now because he's a "talent magnet".
McQueen is defintely knocking on the door of becoming a major name.
Just watched that clip - for some reason, I thought I had watched it already. But yes, it's EXTREMELY cowardly that after McQueen speaks, the rest of them go quiet, with nothing to offer. Not even one of those jackoffs fires off a "the studios are racist" or some bland anti-authoritarian statement. Mostly put off by Jason Reitman's shit-eating grin. Then again, I don't think much of the integrity of this year's Oscar-frontrunning filmmakers.
After Martin Scorsese, Spike Lee is the finest American filmmaker alive. He's allowed to say whatever he wants.
Sadly, you just don't see that much today at all. I mean there was one token black in "Alien"...cut to 35 years later and "Prometheus" features just one black actor? After 35 years??? To me that's insane. Again, I'm not wanting to plaster films with blacks, but some balance to offset the obvious white washing please, for God sake.
I'm not disputing your overall point here at all but I'm not sure Alien is the best example. Yaphet Kotto had quite an established career before that film and was definitely known (in fact at the time, the one person who was the odd one out in terms of having an established prior career was Sigourney Weaver) and also he does survive until almost the end of the movie before being the last to be killed while trying to fight the alien hand to hand.
(Bodaji Bolejo was the 7 foot plus Nigerian who played the Alien most of the time on screen but I can see how that doesn't count)
You know ppl always discount Cube and Perry but even though you guys dont get into their movies there is a large community of people who enjoy those guys movies and Tyler Perry has helped alot of actors with great talent get on as well as Ice Cube. Now if you dont klike their work fine, but dont let the fact theta you dislike their work say that they just do it for the money. Tyler Perry was broke and living in a car with a dream for his plays to jump off and those plays were actually very popular before he started doing movies and he does not go around gloating his riches he is very cheap and does not spend it if he doe snot have to. Now Cube is basically the same way except he was not living in a car he just diversified his hustle. he started out telling stotries that white hllywood was not going to tell correctly(i.e.Playas Club). So please dont judge these guys intentions off of your dislike for their work because these guys work hard and its not just about the money.
I'm not disputing your overall point here at all but I'm not sure Alien is the best example. Yaphet Kotto had quite an established career before that film and was definitely known (in fact at the time, the one person who was the odd one out in terms of having an established prior career was Sigourney Weaver) and also he does survive until almost the end of the movie before being the last to be killed while trying to fight the alien hand to hand.
(Bodaji Bolejo was the 7 foot plus Nigerian who played the Alien most of the time on screen but I can see how that doesn't count)
Honestly, especially back then, it didn't matter how famous he was...he was a token black. Notice how he's relegated to the bowels of the ship with the other "idiot", Brett in maintenance...I'm surprised he wasn't the ship's cook. Yaphet is a big guy so his intimidating presence if what saved him til the end of the film if only to highlight the physically weaker Ripley's plight. That's a token role through and through. I guess "progress" in Prometheus is Idris Elba being allowed to operate the controls of the ship. Yipee.
Well I think the McQueen addition was fine, because it lead to the roundtable and the problem he brought up about a white washed Hollywood. I certainly never intended to compare him to Lee. But I wouldn't mind the thread dovetailing into indie territory seeing as how Lee has made more indies than studio films. I think we're talking about not only the popular side of the totem pole, but the whole totem pole itself.
Honest question - should McQueen be considered different because he's a brit? With all the very unique Brit-of-African-Heritage cultural baggage not necassarily related to or contextualised by the african american cultural experience?
I think what I'm asking is, when people are talking about black voices and black film-making in this thread, really, aren't you all really meaning African-American?
...and how does that change or shape the nature of this discussion in people minds?
I disagree completely with that Alien and Yaphet Koto stuff. It might be a working class sort of part where he's complaining about his contract etc, but he's clearly portrayed a smart and capable. He's the chief engineer of the ship essentially. It's such an ensemble I don't think any part in that could be dispensed with easily. Everyone is carrying their weight. So Koto's part can't be token.
Honestly, especially back then, it didn't matter how famous he was...he was a token black. Notice how he's relegated to the bowels of the ship with the other "idiot", Brett in maintenance...I'm surprised he wasn't the ship's cook. Yaphet is a big guy so his intimidating presence if what saved him til the end of the film if only to highlight the physically weaker Ripley's plight. That's a token role through and through. I guess "progress" in Prometheus is Idris Elba being allowed to operate the controls of the ship. Yipee.
They were all the equivalent of oil rig workers or long haul truckers. Yes, he and Brett were on a worse contract than the others but none of them had particularly enviable jobs (the difference was marginal at best) and ultimately we find that the Company thought all of them were expendable for profit. I don't think you can equate the level of the job with the value of the part.
Honest question - should McQueen be considered different because he's a brit? With all the very unique Brit-of-African-Heritage cultural baggage not necassarily related to or contextualised by the african american cultural experience?
I think what I'm asking is, when people are talking about black voices and black film-making in this thread, really, aren't you all really meaning African-American?
...and how does that change or shape the nature of this discussion in people minds?
I don't think it makes a difference that McQueen is British. When we talk about black actors struggling to break the glass ceiling, several Briits have already been mentioned (Chiwetel Ejiofor, Idris Elba, John Boyega etc). Whether you are British or American, if you are black, you still have to deal with perception issues based on your skin color. McQueen maybe managed to shatter some of those initial pre-conceptions, because he came out the gate directing two hugely critically acclaimed films from the perspective of white people. Makes it hard to pigeon-hole him as a "black director", and it just gives him more leeeway to do whatever he wants down the line. It was a smart move to be honest. He obviously wants to make films from a black perspective as well (as well as the slave film with Ejiofor, he's also trying to get a biopic of the Nigerian singer Fela Kuti made), but realised that proving himself as a director that could handle any subject matter, regardless of his race, would be the key.
The biggest, most commercially successful black director in Britain isn't actually McQueen. It's a guy called Noel Clarke (who is also an actor that appeared in Dr Who for a few seasons). Clarke has struggled to make the transition to Hollywood, despite the succes of his films in the UK (Kidulthood, which he wrote and Adulthood, which he wrote and directed. Both big hits at the UK Box office). Because Clarke's films dealt with multi-cultural issues (kids in UK urban ghettos, primarily black, but also white and Asian), he's been typed as a "black director". But the guy is a commercial fillmmaker, with commercial instincts. I'm surprised Hollywood hasn't snapped him up yet. Clarke tried to pitch Warner Brothers on a making a new Supergirl film, but I think they rejected him.
With the succes Clarke has had in the UK, I think he'd have made the transition to Hollywood by now quite easily. I think he's hindered by the perception of being a "black director" in the way McQueen isn't, despite being British as well.
Honest question - should McQueen be considered different because he's a brit? With all the very unique Brit-of-African-Heritage cultural baggage not necassarily related to or contextualised by the african american cultural experience?
I think what I'm asking is, when people are talking about black voices and black film-making in this thread, really, aren't you all really meaning African-American?
...and how does that change or shape the nature of this discussion in people minds?
It should make more of a difference than it does. Racial schisms are all fairly specific to places. But such the US cultural dominance I suppose. Most of the way we in the English speaking West consider the concept of racism full stop is from a US Civil Rights movement perspective.
The Brits have always been much much better at getting racial diversity on screen, and the whole West Indian or African origin of black Britons has a completely different dynamic to race relations in the US. But that hasn't necessarily prevented the odd riot, of course.
Still whatever the case, McQueen would probably feel that he's in a good position to walk in and kick out the jambs a little bit. Spike says that all the time, as we know. They're probably used to tuning him out. But this guy talks funny and has French awards and shit. That has to clean out some cobwebs in their noodles, a little.
There's ways you could say it's a bad thing because he doesn't necessarily know what he's talking about when it comes to the US context and so on. Him not being such doesn't necessarily help people stop tuning out the African American option, as it were But, it's probably worth a shot all the same.
Gotta say, I always though Clarke had a harder time crossing the pond simply because his films were far too gritty and confrotning in their subject matter and he doesn't want to go majorly commercial - putting him more in line with the likes of Ken Loach or Mike Leigh, two white directors who never had success stateside either.
Gotta say, I always though Clarke had a harder time crossing the pond simply because his films were far too gritty and confrotning in their subject matter and he doesn't want to go majorly commercial - putting him more in line with the likes of Ken Loach or Mike Leigh, two white directors who never had success stateside either.
Clarke is a much more cinematic filmmaker than Loach or Leigh (who both have a great grasp of character and script, but visually, often came across as television directors, where they both started). The subject matter was grim, but the execution was pure Hollywood calling card (and very glossy compared to Loach or Leigh). I thought Clarke would be snapped up by Hollywood based on his more kinetic style.
Clarke may have started off with gritty subject matter, but visually, he's a glossy, commercial moviemaker in a way Loach and Leigh never were. The guy is pitching Supergirl movies to Warners. He obviously wants to go commercial and make expensive, big budget flicks. Leigh and Loach seem happy to stay niche and arthouse till they die. Can you imagine Ken Loach pitching a Supergirl movie to anyone.?
Clarke is a much more cinematic filmmaker than Loach or Leigh (who both have a great grasp of character and script, but visually, often came across as television directors, where they both started). The subject matter was grim, but the execution was pure Hollywood calling card (and very glossy compared to Loach or Leigh). I thought Clarke would be snapped up by Hollywood based on his more kinetic style.
Clarke may have started off with gritty subject matter, but visually, he's a glossy, commercial moviemaker in a way Loach and Leigh never were. The guy is pitching Supergirl movies to Warners. He obviously wants to go commercial and make expensive, big budget flicks. Leigh and Loach seem happy to stay niche and arthouse till they die. Can you imagine Ken Loach pitching a Supergirl movie to anyone.?
All good points and that changes my opinion somewhat too.
I do know I liked him a lot in Centurion anyway.
Clarke is going to be in the next Star Trek film. Will that help him in some way?
