theblackactor.com

Raisin this. Raisin that. Raisin' hell.

Exception – As many of you know, I don’t talk about TV here. This is an exception. 

It’s as if this television production of A Raisin in the Sun is the second coming of the Lord.

Am I to feel all warm and fuzzy about this particular production merely because no one takes a bullet to the brain; and it is without pimps, drug dealers and whores?

I don’t.

Is this production lovely and marvelous because the characters are nice and some of the players are respectable, likeable or award-winning actors and because the work is a praiseworthy drama about an impoverished black family?   

Please.

It is not a matter of good performances by the actors. It is not a matter of whether or not this is a good production. These things are not in question here. I’ll get the kudos out of the way, so as not to be misunderstood. Yes; Lorraine Hansberry was a talented playwright who crafted an exemplary, timeless piece of work. It has been a great stage play and motion picture (starring the illustrious Sidney Poitier). These productions were magical and extraordinary for all the obvious reasons, reasons I won’t go into here.

Okay.

But this most recent television production? Yeah, it’s all fine and good. And?

This production is yet another television remake of this work. Enough. The work has been produced several times, in varying forms. See the following:

1959 - Debut - Broadway Play
1961 - Motion Picture
1973 - Tony Award Winning Musical; titled, Raisin
1989 – Made-for-TV film
2004 - Broadway Revival, and…
2008 - yet another Made-for-TV film

I saw Sean Combs on one of those morning shows, I believe it was -- just a few days ago. 

He said something along these lines:

[I’m glad… I’m doing this because… This is good or necessary…] “because this will bring the story to a new generation.”

This is utter nonsense. This is a sale. theblackactor.com is not buying. This is a vehicle for him to showcase his acting talent as it were, and we’re all supposed to be happy about this because the vehicle chosen (A Raisin in the Sun) is the well-loved, highly regarded work from the respected and highly valued playwright (and screenwriter), Lorraine Hansberry.

I don’t buy this nonsensical rhetoric for one split second.  Marketing.

For a new generation?!!  This is absurd.

Similarly, should we change or create for a new generation the works of Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston, James Baldwin; the Bible, the Koran? These “works” (as well as a plethora of films) have stood the test of time without remodeling or reworking. I’m quite certain this new generation can obtain Sidney Poitier’s film version, for example; and watch it, understand it and appreciate it.

If you, Mr. Combs, want to give something to the new generation, then give them something, you zillionaire: hire a talented screenwriter and build a NEW production, with new ideas –- a good story, with interesting characters. Bring on a talented director and a talented cast, etc., etc.

[Not that he’s reading this; I’m just sayin’]

It is easier, no doubt, to give them what they already have (while at the same time riding the coattails of someone else), and to appease your own self-serving interests under the guise of giving to the new generation. This is laughable.

And to suggest that the new generation would be unaware of this work had it not been for Sean Combs, is a weak, baseless argument; one without merit, as far as I’m concerned.

Serving the new generation? Okay. More self-serving, I'd say.

Shalom

Everyone has something to say about what to do about the present state of black cinema. Some say don’t talk about it; do things. Some are tired of talking about it but don’t know what else to do. Some say we need our own studios, our own directors, our own producers and screenwriters, and production companies.  Some just don’t know what can be done to help black cinema. Undoubtedly, there are those who believe this is beyond help, for any number of reasons. Others are apathetic or just don’t care.

I don’t how the state of black cinema will improve. I am hopeful that it will, but I don’t know that it will. Maybe it will… if something drives us.

I should preface this article with the following:

I know nothing about the inner workings of the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem (“Israelites”). I don’t know if they’re a religion, cult, sect, movement, or spiritual group. I’ll call them a spiritual group. This spiritual group has its critics but that is not under discussion here. My comments are neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of their practices. 

I’m talking about them to highlight an idea -- an ideal, really -- an ideal of cohesiveness. They are highlighted here merely to illustrate a point, the point being that with conviction and planning and cohesiveness, amazing things can be achieved –- insurmountable obstacles can be overcome.

Say what you want to say about them, the fact is this group has achieved something monumental -- something, that perhaps black Hollywood could look at. I am not foolish enough to imply that the Israelites operate in any way like the Hollywood machine or the black Hollywood machine.

Nevertheless, I think black Hollywood can look to them. Why?

They have managed to establish their own community in another land, a land that did not welcome them at first. Yet, they were determined and insistent on establishing their sanctuary in Israel. It is amazing to me that they have realized this. 

They have created their own little world.

A brief history

This spiritual group was founded by Ben Ammi Ben-Israel (formerly Ben Carter, of Chicago) in 1966. Ben Ammi and about 30 of his followers left the United States for Liberia, a land in which they felt they could prosper and practice their beliefs. Three years later, they were expelled from Liberia and began emigrating to Israel (which they consider The Promised Land). Currently, there are about 3,000 of them living in their own community in Dimona, Israel. They also reside in two other Southern Israeli towns -– Arad and Mitzpe Ramon. There are about 20,000 living in the U.S.

The Israelites first arrived in Israel in 1969 as new immigrants, but with their numbers increasing, over the next few years they became unwelcome. As a result, they had no legal protections in Israel and their status there was questionable for some time. They were under constant threat of deportation. They were unwelcome in the schools and health care system. They have fought for Israeli citizenship, since the Israeli government does not consider them Jews. Consequently, they do not enjoy full citizenship. But in August 2003, the Israeli Ministry of the Interior granted them permanent residency status. The Israelites persevered, and over time, did indeed establish their own community in Israel. They created their own schools, managed their own health care and built economic frameworks, which have enabled them to sustain themselves… and prosper.

A little bit about them

They live a communal lifestyle. And they live by a spiritual code which include abstinence from illegal and pharmaceutical drugs and alcohol (except for their own fermented wines they make themselves). They focus on wellness (particularly preventative wellness) and abide by a strict holistic lifestyle and vegan dietary code in line with their spiritual beliefs. As a result, they have low incidence of the physical ails that plague many black Americans such as diabetes, heart disease and obesity. In fact, they have minimal illness in their society. Theirs is a community free of drug abuse and violence. Their community is commonly referred to as The Village of Peace. 

They own their own businesses. They have built their own schools and health care systems. They founded their own childbirthing center called the House of Life. There, their children are birthed without the use of drugs.

All this –- in spite of significant adversity.

How they acquire income

They have many sources of income, including:

• Music (they have musical groups composed of singers who performs internationally)

They own and operate:

• a chain of vegan restaurants (including juice bars) in Israel, the Caribbean, Africa and several in the United States
• their own schools
• a tofu production factory
• a carob candy production factory
• bakeries
• a museum
• a childbirthing hospital
• their own stores
• hair braiding salons / barbershops
• book stores
• a center for Multimedia Education in Atlanta
• spas / retreats / holistic cleansing center
• dental center
• food co-ops

They produce and market a line of cultural clothing that they sell in boutiques abroad.

They produce:  books, CDs, DVDs and their own food via organic farming.

And how does this relate to black cinema?

The African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem envisioned a goal... an ideal... a society -- and they created it.

• they were focused on a goal -- a common goal which, upon execution, benefits many
• someone took control and led their effort
• they made their own way because in their minds, they had to
• they were determined to establish a community in Israel

Of course, the Israelites’ goal was not to make millions of dollars. They had other ideals. Maybe we need ideals beyond GINORMOUS revenue generation. Revenue generation; yes. Profit; yes. But… I dunno. I do not have the answers.

I just figure what they have done is quite remarkable.

It is possible that by looking at them, we can get a sense of what is required.  Deliberate, determined, focused effort is essential, I think.  I wish black Hollywood could copy their unifying power of community and cohesiveness.

Yes; Tyler Perry is building a studio in the ATL. That’s beautiful. It’s great. And I’m glad. But it’s his. And it belongs to him. Oh, I don’t know the particulars; maybe he has business partners and such but it belongs to him and to them... I assume (correct me if I’m wrong). Can a fledgling black filmmaker use his facility?  Can 100 fledgling black filmmakers use his facility? Who knows? I just use Tyler Perry as an example. I am making no statement about what should happen with his studio.

In a nutshell, I think that our situation will not improve if we are fragmented, envious of each other, divided and weak. We must be aligned with a single goal in mind...

... like the Israelites.

World's Corniest Line

In Shaft (2000), John Shaft (Samuel L. Jackson) was talking to his lover; sittin’ there; laid back; workin’ his mack, when he said…

 

    

“It’s my duty to please that booty.”

 

 

 

 

Sit Down, Gayle

Sit down, I say!

Run along, now; and go edit Oprah’s magazine.

Give somebody more deserving a chance.

What the hell was Gayle King doing in the Manchurian Candidate (2004) playing a journalist? There’s somebody 25 and struggling. Let  her do it. Insist.

One of the actresses on The Obenson Report's Podcast 31 could have done it.

Being a billionaire’s best buddy (and enjoying all the benefits therein) and you still have no compunction about stealing taking a role from someone?

Stop it.

Rant over.

What's In a Name -- or a Movie Title?

Am I lame? Probably.

This past Friday, Invisible Woman published someone’s scathing review of the film, Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins. The film was released this past week.

I commented on her post about this. What I said was, once I got wind of a movie titled “Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins” -- at that instant, I had no interest in the movie.

I think you guys might chide me about what’s wrong with that thinking. I recognize it’s close-minded and stupid. Nevertheless, it was my thought.

I thought about this some more and said to myself:

“Self:  Exactly, what was wrong with the title in your eyes –- so wrong you didn’t take the movie seriously -– even though you knew nothing about it?”

I came up with the following reasons:

1.  Something about the word, Roscoe (no disrespect if that’s your name)

2.  Something about the term, “Roscoe Jenkins”

Okay {*** shielding myself with armor ***} I think I thought the name sounded… er… sounded… um slave-like. Or coonish or somethin’.

3.  “Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins” – means nothing to me

Well, I recall at some point having a passing thought that maybe someone was coming home from jail.  I know.  Terrible.

4.  If Roscoe Jenkins is coming home, I guess I don’t care. Maybe I would have cared if Mistress Olivia was coming home; or if Kwame, the blind mathematician, was coming home. Or whatever.

In a nutshell, I didn’t find the title compelling. And in some way, was turned off by the title.

This is not the first time I’ve avoided a pic because of its title. There have been other instances. Sometimes it’s indifference or disinterest; other times it’s downright refusal to watch the film; and also a deliberate effort to avoid all the periphery associated with the film, including trailers and reviews. 

Though my reasoning was different, immediately two other films come to mind -- films I refused to see solely based on their titles:  Pooty Tang (2001) and Booty Call (1997).

I’m not a complete idiot. Surely, if the general consensus is that the film is worth seeing, I’d go see it.

Does a title matter? [Actually, it does matter... a great deal.]

Has the title of a film ever influenced your decision to pay to see it?

I Be LMAO @ Madea

Tyler Perry has made a fortune off the “Madea” films (and theatrical productions). 

Of course, Tyler Perry is quite a bit more than an actor. He is a Director, a Writer and a Producer.

As an actor -- as Madea -- I think Tyler Perry has done an exceptional job of creating and executing this character. I think the character is hysterical and I think he plays her brilliantly. The character is very entertaining. Madea is very real to me because I’ve known her in several people.  Sometimes she reminds me, in many ways, of my Aunt Pauline.

Are the Madea movies funny and generally well-done? Yes; I think so. In terms of pure entertainment value, his films are good. Are his actors good? Yes. Are his vocalists talented? Yes; without a doubt. 

I appreciate that he is adept at bringing us humorous entertainment. I give him credit in this regard. He doesn’t just throw crap together and serve it to us, expecting us to like it because it is family-oriented or safe or funny. I think the theatrical and cinematic aspects of the productions are well-thought out. I appreciate this.

Tyler Perry does one kind of thing. I’d rather him do one thing good than ten things sloppily. His is “family” entertainment with a Christian or religious undertone. His films are safe. He is what he is.

Of course, there can be no real discussion about him without acknowledging that his work is based on his portrayal of a woman. He performs in drag. He does the whole black-man-in-a-dress-thing. Indeed, he is not the only one. But he’s probably earned the most dough doing it. :) And he should. He does it better than the rest.

I’ll definitely be talking more about Tyler Perry in the future, including that certain persistent pattern in much of his work. 

Tee hee hee.

You may also want to read:

Show Me Your Tits, Black Man; I'll Make You A Star

The Great Debaters - What Happened?

I must be incredibly naïve. I have never understood some of the basic concepts behind marketing and advertising. I wonder why it is thought a film should be successful -- or will be successful -- merely because it has behind it “powerhouses” like Oprah Winfrey and Denzel Washington.

Uh, so.

Don’t trip. Oprah Winfrey and Denzel Washington; they’re great and rich and 2,884 other wonderful things, blah blah blah. For me, the fact that Oprah produced it and Denzel directs and stars in it, is not a consideration in my decision to see the pic.

Actually, my main consideration is genre.

This comes up as I thought it might be interesting to examine why The Great Debaters (2007) was a box office failure. 

I should tell you I haven’t seen it. I will eventually watch the film for my work here – and partly because of inexplicable curiosity.

Why has this film only earned $25 million at the box office in three weeks? And why didn’t the film make it to the Top Ten its opening weekend? It was certainly hyped enough. Something happened. 

I don’t know why other people haven’t seen this film. I only know why I haven’t.  We have our dumb films and we have our “good” films, which are all too often based on some true “heartwarming” story.

I also didn’t go see Talk to Me (2007) when it released. I wasn’t interested in the story, even though it starred Don Cheadle (love him) and was directed by Kasi Lemmons (who I am fond of). That still wasn’t enough to get me into the movie.  I thought to myself, “I’ll watch it on DVD.” I did eventually see it, partly because I was highlighting Don Cheadle and Kasi Lemmons. When I finally saw the pic, I thought it was really good.

What do I make of that? Nothing, really. Sometimes a good movie is released and I miss it because I didn’t expect to enjoy it. Sometimes I go to the movies to see what I expect to be a good movie, and leave disappointed.

I haven’t much tuned into the chatter surrounding The Great Debaters, but I do believe it is being highly praised for the overall production and for some of the performances. I don’t question whether or not it’s a good film. And even though the film has been highly praised, I still am not particularly interested in seeing it.

Don’t get it twisted. I’m not saying that these kinds of pics should not be produced.  They’re harmless pics, good pics, inspiring pics, pics with positive images, etc. I am suggesting, however, that in addition to these kinds of pics, there must be other offerings.

There are some who will scold me and the others who haven’t seen the film. They will say we support First Sunday but don’t support this. They will say we are wrong.  They will say we want “good” cinema but don’t support it when it comes. This is nonsense. It’s not anyone’s place to suggest what someone should see at the movies.  People go see what they want to see. theblackactor.com will not advise you to see a film because it is your social responsibility to do so.

Positive and Uplifing. Yeah, that’s cute and all. But I don’t believe that every time a black film is produced it must “always uplift the race.”

I was wondering who was supposed to see this pic. Who was the target audience?  Blacks? If blacks, who? 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 80s, men, women? Was the target audience more broadly defined, as in “everybody?” Was it thought that white youth, Mexican youth, Puerto Rican women would want to see this? The old? The young?

Yeah, yeah. I’m glad a "nice" film came out. I am; but I think the failure of The Great Debaters at the box office is revelatory and indicative of a need... a calling... a request.

Whatever the case, I give ginormous kudos to Oprah and Denzel for doing something -- something good, in black cinema. Regardless of box office numbers -- and subsequent interpretations of those numbers -- they put out something respectable and praiseworthy. 

And for that, I thank them.

Got Kids?

Nephews, Nieces, Godchildren? What do you take them to see?

I don’t mean little kids. I mean those maybe in the 10 – 13 age range.

Do you take them to see what they want to see or do you take them to see what you want them to see?

More often than not, I figure parents probably take their kids to see what the child wants to see.

Have you ever taken them to a mindless black film? Probably. I’m sure if I were taking kids to the movies and they were insisting I take them to see Juwanna Mann (2002) or if all their friends were going or if… I’d probably take them. Hell, I would take them, on occasion. It’s just reality.

So, we all go to the movies.

But are we done yet?  (no pun intended)

What happens after the movies and Mickey D’s?

I wonder if there is dialog between adult and child about what they just saw and what it means; what it really, really means and what it doesn’t mean.

After all, at the age of 10 – 13, a child is in puberty and adolescence. They’re forming their values, etc. I think a two hour lecture on what ails the black film industry is probably not going to hit home at that age, but is there a place for any kind of discussion about the deeper meaning of the film and an explanation of the images it presents?

Excrement, Flatulence & Crappin' in Black Movies

What is it with some black comedic films?

 

    

What is so funny about taking a dump or experiencing diarrhea or flatulence?

 

This crap is inserted into films for no reason whatsoever, except to elicit laughter.

 

    

And it may have been funny the first or second time; but not the 9 millionth time!

 

I continue to be outraged by this pre-school, asinine stupidity!

    

Why are we so fixated on this? 

    

Why?

    

This is something that kids do; making fun of flatulence, crappin’ and burping.

 

This ish ain’t funny.  It’s stupid. 

    

For Godssakes.

    

YOU EMBARRASS US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :(

    

Some films come to mind:

 

    

Friday

    

Are We There Yet?

    

The Nutty Professor

    

Big Momma’s House I

 

    

YOU EXPECT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AS FILMMAKERS!??

 

PLEASE.

Do Black Guys Die First? [UPDATE]

Several people chimed in on the Do Black Guys Die First? post. Thanks to the following commenters: Kimi, Johnny Wishbone, Afrodite, Caesar Cannon, Orville, SONGi, and LaJane Galt.
    
Some people pointed out that women die perhaps as often as males. Interesting.  When I was writing the post, I didn’t even think of females. I seemed to notice this more often with males. But the readers pointed out otherwise.
    
Anyway, here’s what they added:

The Last Boy Scout – Halle Berry
    
3000 Miles to Graceland
    
Kill Bill – Vivica Fox
    
The Transformers – the ONLY black voiced autobot was killed
    
Happy Gilmore – Carl Weathers
    
The Longest Yard – Chris Rock
    
Jurassic Park
    
Freddy vs. Jason – Kelly Rowland
    
I Still Know What You Did Last Summer – Brandy
    
SAW II – Glenn Plummer
    
LaJane says, “the Aliens Franchise was brutal for minorities,” as was Charles Bronson’s Death Wish Series.

Thanks, guys.