Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Evidence Of Things Not Seen: The Structure Of Power; Notes For A Revolution In African-American Filmmaking (Part 2)

Features
by Andre Seewood
March 26, 2012 9:38 AM
25 Comments
  • |

In the previous installment, we examined Sam Greenlee’s paradigm for double agency through tokenism as expressed in his book, THE SPOOK WHO SAT BY THE DOOR (1969) and the 1973 film adaptation directed by Ivan Dixon.

I used the figure of Tyler Perry as a current model of tokenism that could be used to establish an African-American Entertainment complex that would rival the American Entertainment complex and allow African-Americans to have the same artistic freedom, funding and access to global distribution that White filmmakers take for granted. What will follow in this next installment is an examination of the structure of Hollywood and several peculiar practices used to alternately curtail, control and defeat African-American filmmakers. In a recent post, Tambay Obenson pondered, ”the seemingly dismal outlook for Black filmmakers working within the Hollywood Studio System,” [March 16, 2012]. I will try to add to Obenson’s astute observations and convince us here that 1) our lack of historical knowledge about how the Hollywood system maintains its power and 2) how as African-American filmmakers/spectators we are so easily and too often seduced to play against ourselves are respectively what that keeps the outlook dismal for all African-Americans vis-à-vis the Hollywood Studio System.

It is widely known that the business model of Hollywood is rapidly changing from the effects of new technology and massive global expansion and consolidation, but the purpose of this essay is to provide a “snapshot” approximation of the business structure of Hollywood for the purpose of exposing the lines of power that stereotype and undermine African-American filmmaking. For although new technology has provided the means through which we have the power now to make films, collectively as African-Americans we still lack the power to get our films shown. It will be argued in this essay that power is not monolithic and static, but instead that power moves and changes to protect its interests in blocking others from attaining power. In Hollywood power is exercised in the control, constriction and domination of African-American filmmakers and their ability to fund, produce and distribute their work in all markets domestic and foreign. Hence, this essay will be more of an exploration of “how we can” as opposed to “why we cannot”. We should begin our examination at a pivotal juncture in Hollywood history: the 1948 Supreme Court decision, The United States v. Paramount Pictures.

Prior to 1948 all Hollywood studios were vertically integrated, meaning that each studio controlled the means of production, the lines of distribution and owned the movie theatres where in which their films were shown; ownership was complete from top to bottom and this is described as vertical integration. After the landmark 1948 Supreme Court decision, the five major Hollywood Studios were forced to sell off their movie theatres which in turn leveled the playing field and allowed more independent filmmakers/producers and studios to release their product on screens across the country. Yet, the ending of vertical integration led directly to the birth of a more powerful and incontestable consolidation of major Hollywood Studio power through what I will call,” Horizontal Affiliation”. In short, Horizontal Affiliation allows the studios to work in collusion with the major theatre chains, domestic and foreign, to control screen ratios and block book films several years before the films have actually completed production. If a film like THE HUNGER GAMES opens at 4137 theatres and your film opens at 500 theatres, which film is more likely poised to have the biggest opening weekend box office? The maintenance of screen ratios throughout the domestic and foreign marketplace is a major key in Hollywood’s overall power structure supported by the studios and the exhibitors.

What makes Horizontal Affiliation so incontestable legally is that it is sustained by a tacit agreement amongst the parties involved. The tacit agreement is an informal contract affirmed through head nods and handshakes rather than on paper, legal documents, stocks and other legally traceable evidence that brought about the end of vertical integration. There can be no coincidence that the first multimillion dollar Blockbuster of American film history after the 1948 Supreme Court decision was a film that itself was about “tacit agreements” sustained and broken through violence: THE GODFATHER (Francis Coppola, 1972). THE GODFATHER was a test run of the viability of a tacit agreement between Paramount pictures and the Loews theatre chain which exclusively screened the special world premiere of the film in New York in five different theatres and later raised ticket prices to increase the “take” in box office receipts. (See: pages 201-204, The Godfather Legacy by Harlan Lebo) It is the strength of the “tacit agreement” and the faith upon which it is based that must be fully understood and accepted by all African-American filmmakers if we wish to create and sustain an African-American Entertainment Complex.

In a democratic society the tacit agreement is the most effective means through which laws and government regulations can be subverted by groups of individuals or groups of corporations (who for tax purposes are treated as individuals). The tacit agreement to subvert democratic laws and government regulations goes as far back as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln on April 15, 1865 as a consequence of the advocating voting rights for Negroes and the senate’s passage of the 13th amendment abolishing slavery. While just several months later, six confederate veterans in a boarding house in Pulaski, Tennessee entered into a tacit agreement to form an organization to retract the freedoms granted to Negroes through violent terror tactics: The 1st Ku Klux Klan. The very purpose of this later tacit agreement was born out of fear of Black competition in business, labor and politics. When we consider how in 1973 the U.S. Government pressured theatre owners to pull Ivan Dixon’s film, THE SPOOK WHO SAT BY THE DOOR, from the theatres, in the documentary INFILTRAITING HOLLYWOOD: The Rise and the Fall of THE SPOOK WHO SAT BY THE DOOR, author Sam Greenlee reveals the result of the tacit agreement between Universal Pictures and theatre exhibitors who waited exactly two weeks to pull the film which was just enough time for Universal to recoup its distribution costs for acquiring the independently financed film. The film would not be seen again until almost 30 years later.

Although Hollywood tacit agreements are incontestable in legal courts for a number of reasons (bribery, horizontal affiliation among the studios and legal institutions, political contributions) we can find trace evidence of its existence. The celebrated documentary, THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED (2006) by Kirby Dick exposes for us a vast horizontal affiliation that includes the major national theatre chains, film studios and the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). With breath-taking audacity within the film, Kirby reveals that Hollywood’s attempt to regulate itself via a Movie Rating System (G-through NC17) is nothing more than a tacit agreement between the major studios and the national theatre chains to manage the content of their competition by harshly judging independent films and films made by smaller less powerful producers. Films that receive the dreaded NC17 rating cannot be advertised in Newspapers, on Network Television and Radio; this interdiction itself reveals the vast horizontal affiliation and tacit agreement among movie studios, print media, television and radio that subverts Freedom of Speech laws, Free market regulations and the notion of freedom upon which this country was founded. Yet, membership in the MPAA is secret and under the ruse of self-regulation the Hollywood Studios have created a legally incontestable means through which to “regulate” anyone who might be their competition.

More trace evidence of Hollywood’s tacit agreements can be found in the success of Tyler Perry. As a recognizable brand, Perry’s films are consistently released within a two to four week window from any other competing African-American themed film from a competing Hollywood studio. His recent release, GOOD DEEDS, was preceded by the smaller art-house African-American film PARIAH several weeks before and the Denzel Washington vehicle SAFE HOUSE released just 15 days before. Perry’s films rarely, if ever, simultaneously compete with another rival African-American film from another major studio and this is evidence of horizontal affiliation and tacit agreement among Hollywood studios to diminish the significance of African-American filmmakers while using Perry’s success and token status as a defensive strategy to retain their power as well as their profits. Without any major competition it is useless to complain about the quality or the content of Perry’s work, because at the end of the day the Hollywood studios have entered into a tacit agreement to “kill” any competing African-American filmmakers whose work might challenge the box office of their token. Hence, Perry’s success is a wholly manufactured product of Hollywood’s power and control over its audiences through its incontestable horizontal affiliation. If the voices of dissent concerning the dearth of African-American films being released each year as compared to what must now be looked upon as “the golden era of the early nineties”, publicity announcements are made about a known Black director being attached to a high profile project or a first look deal for a Black filmmaker with a major studio- only we find out several months later that the deal has “fallen through” or that that first look deal is really a “no look” deal with a major studio.

Along with our snapshot of the business structure of Hollywood we have to acknowledge that there have been quite a few steps taken towards what might be defined as,” vertical re-integration”; that is, Hollywood studios (and huge media conglomerates like Clear Channel or Comcast) are purchasing Network television companies, cable channels and considering purchasing cell phone and/or internet service providers. Such purchases would provide the studios with direct access to the spectator as they once enjoyed in the good old days before 1948. For instance, Sony has just recently announced its Sony Movie Channel which will run many of the films from Sony’s vast library of over 3500 films for years and years to come. Now Sony can recoup theatrical losses and augment its profits directly through its own cable channel which amounts to being an exhibitor within the context of the home theatre market. Vertical Re-integration is an insidious form of oligarchy capitalism that strengthens the power of Hollywood studios by increasing the ubiquity of its product.

Another example is Walt Disney Studios which owns the ABC network and in turn this direct ownership allows Disney to reduce the costs of marketing and advertising its films and films released through its subsidiary studios. For instance, Disney’s recent box office flop, JOHN CARTER was heavily advertised on ABC and on the Disney cable channel. Yet, advertisements by the parent company on its subsidiaries are not truly paid advertisements. That is to say, these advertisements are what are known as promotional ads. Here Disney has the option of writing its advertisement costs on the books for the profits/losses of JOHN CARTER, but in actuality these are “ghost costs”- they don’t actually exist because any ads that ran on ABC or the Disney Channel are “promos” or promotional ads of the parent company. Rest assured JOHN CARTER will eventually make a profit because cable fees for the Disney Channel where the film will run indefinitely will offset its initial short-term box office disappointment.

If we want establish an African-American Entertainment Complex –and we must do so if only to allow ourselves the freedom to represent ourselves onscreen with the power to show our films in international markets as well as domestic markets- we have to utilize the tools of horizontal affiliation, tacit agreement with the aegis of tokens (who are aware of their token status) to lay the foundation. Those African-Americans (Sean “P-Diddy” Combs and Magic Johnson) who have been offered cable television channels as tokens must be encouraged not to sell when the going gets manipulated into being rough and to realize the importance of horizontal affiliation with African-American producers and studio owners worldwide. But none of these tools can work if we are too easily seduced and distracted by tokenism (false power through wealth and celebrity); if we are deliberately pitted against one another through industry manipulated egoism [Spike Lee/Tyler Perry]; or if we continue to pursue the illusion of a Hollywood Contract which in actuality keeps more African-Americans from producing and releasing films consistently than it does to secure their careers. The true power that we lack is a certain “faith” in ourselves as a people and “they” [define “they” as you wish] know this. They know that if you make one of us extremely rich others will be quiet and follow. They know that if you pit one of us against the other you can weaken them both and keep the profits. And finally, they know that the illusion of Hollywood success is more powerful than any drug and that we are all addicts looking for another hit.

I believe that “faith” that allows competing Hollywood studios to enter into a tacit agreement with their competitors and preserve strong horizontal affiliations with other businesses is founded upon what H. Paul Jeffers enigmatically describes as, ”that Religion in which all men agree ,” in his discussion of Free Masonry. (27, Freemasons)

By the same token, if we continue to act in “bad faith” with one another we will never be able to build the foundation for an African-American Entertainment Complex.

The third installment of these NOTES will concern the financial structure of the American Entertainment Complex and the full preliminary blueprint for an African-American Entertainment Complex. I would also like to answer some very significant questions posed in the comments of the first installment concerning who would be interested in seeing films from this proposed African-American Entertainment Complex. I hope the proposed answers surprise us all.

Andre Seewood is the author of SLAVE CINEMA: The Crisis of the African-American in Film. Pick up a copy of the book via Amazon.com HERE.

Features
  • |
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

25 Comments

  • Donella | March 27, 2012 3:17 PMReply

    ***Hence, Perry’s success is a wholly manufactured product of Hollywood’s power and control over its audiences through its incontestable horizontal affiliation.*** Strongly DISAGREE.

  • CareyCarey | March 27, 2012 12:37 PMReply

    I AM THE BOOGIE MAN AND I APPROVE OF THIS AD: Paid for by the Action Jackass committee against real talk. First, let's pass out the consolation prizes. "Thought provoking as usual, whether I agree with each point or not" ~Helluva. "Seewood's consistent...if you don't like his writing don't read it wtf?!!!" ~ Mister We're Not There Yet, March 27, 2012 1:11 AM. Now, let's move forward. Who likes being pimp slapped or talked to as if they have a tail? Well, I don't, which brings me to my bone of contention - today. Is it safe yet? I mean, having grown miserably tired of the double entendre of African American arm-chair film critics, aka, "talking heads", I was wondering if it's safe to remove my ear filters? Come on, how on earth can anyone make a discerned decision of any significance, based on the constant bombardment of anti-Tyler Perry rhetoric that's filled with risque or indecorous connotations? I don't know about you, but to me, most of those ambiguous "ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies" posts, are nothing more than fear-mongering big fat lies. Because of that, and because I don't like being offended, nor have my intelligence insulted, I've created a no fly zone. If while watching TV (or reading a blog) and a pompous "fat-cat's" mug happens to appear on the scene, he or she will not fly with me. I immediately assume the position of the 3 monkeys or Snagglepuss, and thus, exit - stage left. Or, I let my fingers do the walking. I tap tap tap on my remote control, which I call the zapper, and then *Poof* they're gone. I don't have to deal with their conflicting messages of madness. Besides, who are those clowns behind all those "save black cinema" action committees? I mean, what's their real beef or agenda? Are they frustrated would-be or wanna-be film directors? Have they been relegated to a positions of film school teachers? Yeah, maybe they make their living by telling others the fine art of the movie business? Maybe they do what they do to sell books or get blog hits? Really, who knows what evil lurks in the heart of those whom call themselves The Committee Against Anything Tyler? Of course I'm being a little facetious, but really, some of their "voices" speak so loudly that I know I should not listen to a word they have to say. You know, it could damage my ear hole and twist my head. Come on now, names like Black Folks Against Films That Make Us Laugh, leaves no doubt that they don't have me (or anyone who looks like me) in their best interests. So I will be more than happy when this "political season" comes to an end. Now, aside from the chitty-chat-traps of doom and gloom, I'd love to zap the runaway zombies that swallow that garbage - hook, line, and sinker? I call that group of free thinkers "Sucker Sponge Bobs", aka, The Disciples of Fear & Boogieman Mongering. "Hey man, did you hear what the white man did to us? Please tell me that you heard that we would be better off if Tyler Perry never hit the scene!"? No Bimbo Bobbin' Head Doll, I didn't hear that. However, I did hear what Viola Davis said. She said the biggest problem facing black cinema is a dearth of superior writing talent among the black community. She said the buck should stop right there. Yet, too often, the black community listens to the wrong voice. They'd rather shame and blame instead of simply saying the biggest problem is the overwhelming majority of wanna-be African American Directors and African American writers are ushering in piss-poor products. That's the real bottom line. But is it safe yet? Oooooh, wait, one last thing--->Fear and Faith cannot co-exist in the same heart ---> http://careycarey-carrymehome.blogspot.com/2010/11/fear-and-faith-can-not-co-exist-in-same.html

  • Helluva | March 27, 2012 9:16 AMReply

    Good work by the author. Thought provoking as usual, whether I agree with each point or not.

  • Miles Ellison | March 27, 2012 7:59 AMReply

    Tyler Perry's success is the result of black people supporting his particular brand of nonsense. If black people supported something different the way they support him, maybe he wouldn't be as popular. It didn't take a few billionaires in Barcaloungers to create Tyler Perry. It took millions of black people paying money to see his plays and movies. And like the previous poster said, people like shit. You can create whatever distribution apparatus you want, and make all of the uplifting, diverse, multifaceted movies you want. It ultimately comes down to what people will pay for. Judging from the current landscape, people will pay for shit, and movie studios will support people who will make the shit that people are willing to pay for.

  • Akimbo | March 27, 2012 6:21 AMReply

    Believing that Tyler Perry was selected as filmmaking's black delegate by some secret cabal may help you sleep at night, but the reality of the situation is that he makes money. People like stupid shit. He produces the stupidest and shittiest of shit. He wins. Trust, no other studio is trying to prop him up; they're on the hunt for their very own golden shit slinger.

  • toexplain | March 26, 2012 3:16 PMReply

    The only people who have a motive to prop up Tyler Perry is Lionsgate. There is not a tacit understanding between studios. The reason you don't see two black films competing on the same week is to avoid audience fragmentation. And yes, due to Tyler's popularity, most people would not want to share the same date. Since there are so few of our films coming out via the studio system these day, the last thing filmmakers would want is to compete against each other when there are 51 other weeks to look at to stake their claim.

    Every studio monitors the others releasing schedule and shifts accordingly.

  • chi guy | March 26, 2012 2:54 PMReply

    @MarcoBolo, if you read my statement it clearly stated, the predominant african american movie going audience. That means the folks that go to the theaters on a consistent basis. There is a reason why a film like Talk To Me made $4 or Love Jones,an example I mentioned earlier, only made $12.5. There is a long list of films that support this claim. To study the system without looking at the consumer's role is a bit obtuse.

  • CareyCarey | March 26, 2012 1:52 PMReply

    STOP THE VIRAL-BULLSH*T! I mean, come on---> "this is evidence of horizontal affiliation and tacit agreement among Hollywood studios to diminish the significance of African-American filmmakers while using Perry’s success and token status as a defensive strategy to retain their power as well as their profits. Without any major competition it is useless to complain about the quality or the content of Perry’s work, because at the end of the day the Hollywood studios have entered into a tacit agreement to “kill” any competing African-American filmmakers whose work might challenge the box office of their token. Hence, Perry’s success is a wholly manufactured product of Hollywood’s power and control over its audiences through its incontestable horizontal affiliation". SERIOUSLY??? Are you freakin' serious? I am very hestitant to engratiate that line of thinking. Listen, let me break down what I consider to be Andre's "slow drag". First, the set-up can be found in the mystical "(incontestable) Hollywood tacit agreements". Yeah, in layman's terms that's the Boogieman without a face nor legs. I am reminded of the old radio show The Shadow. The title character was given the power to "cloud men's minds so they cannot see him". So, in essence the rest of Adrea's spiel is pointless. Well, I guess I should ask the questions "what's the point and what solutions is he offering?" Uuuuuum? Selling books? But wait, to be fair let's look at Andre's Boogieman's goals. Here's one he tried to slip under the rug ----> "Hollywood’s attempt to regulate itself via a Movie Rating System (G-through NC17) is nothing more than a tacit agreement between the major studios and the national theatre chains to manage the content of their competition by harshly judging independent films and films made by smaller less powerful producers". EXCUSE ME? Nothing more than a "tacit agreement" to do WHAT?! But let's move forward to Andre's big bamboozle ----->"Without any major competition it is useless to complain about the quality or the content of Perry’s work, because at the end of the day the Hollywood studios have entered into a tacit agreement to “kill” any competing African-American filmmakers whose work might challenge the box office of their token. Hence, Perry’s success is a wholly manufactured product of Hollywood’s power and control over its audiences through its incontestable horizontal affiliation" . Come on Andre, I realize you're "anti-Tyler" but Seriously man... Perry's success is WHOLLY MANUFACTURED by whom and for what reasons??? BS... that's unadulterated nonsence. Listen, to have a race, contest or fight, you have to bring some to get some. But wait, Andre said the Boogie Man has blocked the production of other African American films that may have competed with Tyler. Yeeeeah riiiiiiiight. I wonder what AF film(s) would have seen Tyler's "success" if given the same "push" as one of Tyler's films? In Short, S & A should title Andre's post "The Boogieman's Conspiricy Theory". Or, "Andre's Talking Head Points That Make Other "Anti-Tyler Perry" Negros Bob Their Heads Up And Down, Up And Down"

  • CareyCarey | March 27, 2012 4:09 AM

    @ ARE WE THERE YET, I could kiss you for asking. But first, it would be nice if you posted under your real name. I say that because I wasn't BOTHERED in the least and you're displaying pettiness by hiding behind a fact screen name. I am an open book. My face is displayed @ my blog http://careycarey-carrymehome.blogspot.com/ and my phone number is 563-499-5317. Anyway, back to your initial question and my alledge "reaction". Well, let's start here---> "[Andre] Don't do a disservice to your readers" ~Eyeroller | March 26, 2012 1:30 PM. So AreWeThereYet, I am not the only one who see's the damage of Andre's posts. So as my mother once told me, in order for a child,pet or adult to instantly remember why they're are being disciplined or scolded, a person (adult or whomever) should get that ass where they do their dirt. So if not here then where? And if not now then when? Now. you believe Seawood is "consistent". Okay, whatever that means, but I see his rethoric as running game on black folks in order to move his own personal agenda. Consequently, just as he "may" feel as if it's his duty or calling to inform us poor unknowing black folks on the ways and means of "Hollywood" I have that exact duty to say "Wait one minute Mr Andre, you're not telling the whole story nor the whole truth and you're talking to us like we are empty-minded vessel to be molded as you please". In essence, I view much of his "spiel" as pimp slapping black folks while he sales his book. So my position is that of a concerned black man. If I saw someone abusing another man, my heart couldn't rest until I addressed the "wrongdoings". It's my hope that more individuals had the courage to say exactly what's on their minds and not sit back in fear that they might find themselves ostracized or taken to the woodshed because of having differing beliefs than the "in-crowd". But your advice is "don't read it". Yeah, and the beat goes on. If not addressed, someone might pass along his "untruths" as facts and then as EYEROLLER said, he would be doing a disservice to the readers of S & A. Lastly, Andre's blame game boogieman preachings is indeed an effective tool to arouse the masses and it gathers many takers and supporters, but as I said in another post, it's an old game with no solutions. Granted, I will never win an English composition contest, but I have to stike with whatever means necessary. And hey, controversy can be a good thang. If I or anyone constantly patted Andre on his back, as if everything was fine and dandy, we could make a poor hustler out of him. So you and him needs to thank me and not hate me or call me names.

  • Are We There Yet? | March 27, 2012 1:11 AM

    @CareyCarey -- why are you sooooo BOTHERED by this post? I mean, it clearly struck a nerve but why? Have you even seen Kirby Dick's film? Why don't you lobby Tambay to share your media theories with a post of your own 'cause you're coming off as extremely petty with this rant. Seewood's consistent...if you don't like his writing don't read it wtf?!!!

    Unless you just like the attention.

  • CareyCarey | March 26, 2012 3:28 PM

    @ Andre, what you say is true -----> "What I am really against is "our" inability to have sustained intelligent conversations/discussions or debates about African-American film and the American Film Industry without them degenerating into either/or zero sum games. I either like Tyler Perry's or I don't like his work. I either like Spike Lee's work or I don't like his work". Yes Andre, they may be true, but your words speak much louder than your intent. I am suggesting that whether you're "anti-Tyler" or "Anti-Token", call it what you may, nevertheless, it cannot be denied that much of your "conversations" regarding "what's wrong with Black Cinema?" seem to focus on Mr Tyler Perry. And please Andre, you say you're not inclined to participant in polemicism, yet your WHOLE post is nothing but unsubstantiated (and very porous) THEORY! NOT EVIDENCE! So basically you're acting like our father figure - huh? You know, "DON'T do what I do, but do what I say to do. Children should be seen and not heard unless we're agreeing with you?". Yeah, okay, gotcha Andre. We should just shake our heads like bobbin' head dolls.

  • Andre Seewood | March 26, 2012 2:27 PM

    I'm not "anti-Tyler", I'm anti-Token. I cannot as a filmmaker be against Tyler Perry. Tyler Perry has the right to produce, direct, write and create any film that he wants to make- and as an artist I support him in that effort. I know that the moment you mention Tyler Perry's name and if you are not praising him and his work- people immediately make the snap judgment that you are criticizing him. What I am really against is "our" inability to have sustained intelligent conversations/discussions or debates about African-American film and the American Film Industry without them degenerating into either/or zero sum games. I either like Tyler Perry's or I don't like his work. I either like Spike Lee's work or I don't like his work. This isn't criticism, this isn't a rational argument, this isn't a theory or an evalution of an aesthetic. It's just polemicism- that is divisive and pointless. I'm not participating in in that at all.

  • Eyeroller | March 26, 2012 1:30 PMReply

    Rolling my eyes at this. Your overzealousness to indict is damaging since there are people here who will take your words as fact. A secret handshake agreement between the studios is why they don't schedule movies around Tyler movie you say? How about staying clear of competition when scheduling? Less conspiratorial I know but more truthful. Don't do a disservice to your readers. "His recent release, GOOD DEEDS, was preceded by the smaller art-house African-American film PARIAH several weeks before and the Denzel Washington vehicle SAFE HOUSE released just 15 days before. Perry’s films rarely, if ever, simultaneously compete with another rival African-American film from another major studio and this is evidence of horizontal affiliation and tacit agreement among Hollywood studios to diminish the significance of African-American filmmakers while using Perry’s success and token status as a defensive strategy to retain their power as well as their profits"

  • Akimbo | March 27, 2012 6:10 AM

    Andre's response below is even crazier than the article. Studios staggering the releases of movies with similar target audiences is not collusion; they're acting in their best interest so they can get the biggest crowds. No way in hell would the new Dark Knight movie come out on the same weekend as the Avengers movie. No way in hell would both Snow White movies come out at the same time. Absolutely no damn way would two movies starring Denzel Washington come out in the same weekend. It's common sense, not a conspiracy. Movies don't have to open at the same time to compete; that's what box office numbers are for. The fact that Tyler Perry's receipts blow every other black movie's of the water is proof enough that audiences prefer his work. I don't like it, but that much is evident.

  • Marco Bolo | March 26, 2012 2:46 PM

    Mr. Seewood
    Please do not defend your self in the comments field, leave your thoughts in your post. The people of S&A deemed you worthy to pen your own post and express your voice, that's good enough! Leave the comments section for people like us, people who can say what ever we want and no one knows who we are, so we can hate with no fault!
    Sincerely
    Marco Bolo

  • Marco Bolo | March 26, 2012 2:45 PM

    Mr. Seewood
    Please do not defend your self in the comments field, leave your thoughts in your post. The people of S&A deemed you worthy to pen your own post and express your voice, that's good enough! Leave the comments section for people like us, people who can say what ever we want and no one knows who we are, so we can hate with no fault!
    Sincerely
    Marco Bolo

  • CareyCarey | March 26, 2012 2:04 PM

    HELLO EYEROLLER... let me shake your hand. I am overjoyed that someone else saw through this BS. In fact, your words were so nice let's say it twice "Don't do a disservice to your readers". And let me add---> Every closed eye or silent pen is not asleep.

  • Andre Seewood | March 26, 2012 2:00 PM

    @EYEROLLER- Your unwillingness to indict is even more appalling. Last time I checked, a healthly competition among businesses in the same industry was the basis of a Free Market Economy. If these businesses collude together to avoid competition, it makes it impossible to fairly judge whether or not the "Black" audience actually prefers Tyler Perry's work over other African-American themed films that could be released simultaneously- or whether or not his work is actually good or bad since his films don't actually compete with other African-American films. There is something unlawful here and if you don't have the balls to acknowledge it- I for one, will. HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS participate in unfair business practices against African-American Filmmakers.

  • Marco Bolo | March 26, 2012 12:48 PMReply

    Alternative Cinema Society will set us free!!!
    What is the Alternative Cinema Society ? The world will soon know:-)

  • chi guy | March 26, 2012 12:33 PMReply

    For all the folks that see this post then shoot straight down to the comments section, please read it in its entirety. Great read. I have two points of contention, 1) Tyler Perry became a token after it was discovered that his films made big money, he was not anointed initially, in fact he was dismissed as an after thought. No one saw him coming as a box office juggernaut. Once that occurred then they provided a system to help him create his machine of product. The minute it stops making money his position will be nullified. This leads me to my second point, even if a system were in place that allowed filmmakers of color to tell their stories, it will all depend on the audience to support it. Face it, the predominant African American movie going audience is a very fickle beast. If something is too outside the norm they won't support it, think of the classic film Love Jones or the more recent film Pariah. If its inside the norm they will bootleg the hell out of it thus affecting the box office gross.

    It is ideal to attack the studio system but it must be stated that we the audience are just as responsible for the dearth of African American films.

  • artbizzy | March 26, 2012 2:30 PM

    @MarcoBolo But what is "good" and "marketable"? And remember that all of us, not just blacks, have been conditioned to value mainstream films over films that deal with more complex and nuanced subject matter. While I see your point I think this speaks more to the ways we've been conditioned through media and education to seek out more of the same ole thing when it comes to films.

  • Marco Bolo | March 26, 2012 2:10 PM

    I think both of you two are idiots! Really to say black people are limited in taste is a trick that hack filmmakers have been using since the advent of film. If your product is good and marketable black people will support regardless of its premise!!! Your ignorant statements show how you have been brainwashed to believe that blacks have a limited mental capacity thus allowing them to only appreciate simple things. You two my friends are the ones that are simple!

  • Gary C. | March 26, 2012 12:56 PM

    @Chi Guy. Great points on the fickleness of black movie goers tastes. That's a key element that is often over looked. Just like some say Perry's overall success is damaging to aspiring black filmmakers, african american audiences close mindedness to the movies they'll support is also. It's an innate pride in our people that we as blacks automatically start off telling "black" stories but many of us soon find that our own people will constrict us creatively with their fickleness.

  • Gary C. | March 26, 2012 12:15 PMReply

    In any other industry, the blatant racist practices employed by hollywood against people of color would've been attacked by politicians and civil right leaders with vigor. Anyone paying a minute attention to hollywood can see it. Those of us with concerns write, blog and post about it but what needs to be done is the naming of names. Call out the heads of these studios for their practices. But we know why this isn't done. No one wants to acknowledge the pink elephant in the room that is the people who run the industry and their power consolidation for themselves against those who aren't.

  • Clayton Broomes | March 26, 2012 11:57 AMReply

    Good read. It put into concise perspective everything I was already aware of regarding how things really work in Hollywood. Makes you question your own sanity for pursuing a career in this business. But it's an inescapable reality in almost all industries, tactic agreements, unless you can go around the powers that be as Mark Zuckerburg did when he first created Facebook, which is in what is probably the youngest industry of them all -- the .com industry -- making it a little easier for talented, imaginative programmers at the time (today is a different story). Anyone can learn plenty regarding this subject matter by just studying the business of making movies and understanding the cash flow that is the part of the average business model for any film production company. It's rather deep and it helps you to understand the pointlessness of putting down Tyler Perry as a person, a businessman, and praying for the downfall of films like "Red Tails". It undermines rather than liberate. It also puts us against each other, even though I think the idea of us as individuals "making it" puts us against each other more than anything (good luck to up-and-comers asking for a little support from any black film artist who supposedly "made it" as of late). I would like to ask the author for a bibliography of the works read to infuse this essay with such poignant insight.

Follow Shadow and Act

Email Updates

Most "Liked"

  • Now Taking Your Questions for S&A Column ...
  • "Many Documentary Films Have Been Shot ...
  • 2014 IFP Project Forum Slate Includes ...
  • Ahead of 'Finding Fela's' Release, Watch ...
  • Tessa ThompsonInterview: Tessa Thompson Talks Emotionally ...
  • TV One Gets Into Original Movies. Will ...
  • Shemar Moore is Returning to 'The Young ...
  • A Trip Down Memory Lane w/ 1970s Actress ...
  • Regina King Joins 'American Crime' Cast, ...
  • Watch Craig Robinson in First Trailer ...