Notes On Working Towards A Fanboy/Girl Culture In Black Indie Cinema Part 3 (Who Excites You?)

54 Comments

• | Reply

• CareyCarey | July 12, 2012 10:31 PMReply

  @Justsaying & Monkeysuit, one said "But in my questioning, I am looking to come up with creative solutions that as a result teach/incite more viewers to engage in these needed conversations. What can we do differently or focus more on that will inevitably change the culture of how a film is viewed and processed by the mass viewers." The other said: "I really want to have more discussions like this. Y'all know of any other spaces besides the S&A comment section? I love S&A and all, but we're limited here. Yes, we as a community get few opportunities to showcase our experience on the big screen sin-stereotype and sin-buffoonery. But that alone shouldn't be our evaluation point." And PRISS >>> rolling her eyes "I've been on the internet for 20 years this year"..."Monkeysuit, that's not just an important question, it's a critical one. S&A cannot and should not be all things to all people. It should be what Tambay, Sergio, Vanessa and others put into it. WE have to augment and add to discussion"... "It just requires a few more people adding their voices and digging a little deeper. There's great power in just two or three people in each film community covering locally what's going on. We can wait for someone else to fill it or we can do it ourselves" by Charles Judson. Okay, now it's my turn. First, like Charles, I've been on the Internet (involved in discussion on "discussion boards") since 1998. I got my feet wet at African American literature book sites. There were no such thing as "blogs"; Acronym for "Web Log", they were basically designed for ongoing, indepth conversations. So you're correct and as Charles implied, Shadow and Act is not setup for the types of conversations "we" desire. Case in point... -- and to embellish my "opinion" -- Charles also spoke about the rich conversations that ensued at "a great Q&A (one that was happening at 1am mind you because we played the film at 11:30pm as the last screening of the fest)". Well, in that same vain, at one book site's "discussion board" (many site did), authors would participate in the discussion. Whether it was their book or a different author, they would jump right in. On several occassions the conversations would last into the wee hours of the morning. And similar to S&A's old podcasts; once a week a featured author would participate in a 2 hour discussion @ a "chat room". The room was only opened (by the sponsor who sold books on-line) for that specific purpose, at a specific time. Let me tell you something, can you imagine the delight of having an open conversation with the hottest new authors from various genres or an old school author like Walter Moseley? Come on now, we're talking wonderfully delightful discourse. Heck, I was able to get many personalized autographed copies of books just by participating in those "chats". Most if not all of the authors loved the interactions with their readers (as Charles said about those in his Q&A). But most importantly, a moderator was always there, deeply involved in the discussion (as Charles said he was). They had done their due diligence and thus, set the mood and direction of the night, AND they stayed engaged; interjecting when appropriate. Call-in type podcasts are "OK" but they pale in comparison to the above. But let me go back. One of you said you wanted a forum to "teach/incite". Well, in my many years of "learning" and "teaching" and being on the internet , I've learned -- sometimes the hard way -- what "works" and that the best teaching tool is "SHOW ME". I am suggesting what Charles said, "There's great power in just two or three people"... "and we can wait for someone else to fill it or....". Also, in reference to my comment on combating fear, and how it relates to having the types of discussion you desire, "we" as a collective group are not going to incite anyone to change business as normal. It has to start from the top. I mean, just like any endeavor which tries to change the collective minds of many, someone with the willpower, courage and passion to fight a strong arduous battle, has to take the reins. Someone (i.e. director, writer, filmmaker, producer, actors, etc) the film community respects has to SHOW others that it's beneficial to lay themselves out to open, honest and "unmuted" types of feedback/critique/analysis/conversations mentioned throughout this post. Lastly, again as Charles said, it could start on a local and/or regional scale and it does not take many to get the ball rolling, it just has to be the right "ones". As words spreads, whatever fears one may have harbored, they will SEE that their concerns were nothing but unnecessary "worry". I am OUT ~CareyCarey

• monkeysuit | July 11, 2012 10:31 PMReply

  @Judson, Laura, Justsaying, CareyCarey and whoever else is following along, I completely agree with all of you, and its a relief to hear (or see?) what I've been feeling these last couple of years. I hope we can continue this discussion because it's refreshing to hear people tell it like it is and not get blind-sighted by the politics. Yes, it's really fucking hard to be a black filmmaker and tell black stories. Yes, we as a community get few opportunities to showcase our experience on the big screen sin-stereotype and sin-buffoonery. But that alone shouldn't be our evaluation point. As an artist, I want to be judged as that first and foremost. I don't want brownie points for being oppressed. Anyways, thanks guys for making me feel sane again and raising the discussion level.

• monkeysuit | July 12, 2012 7:54 PM

  @Priss Wow, what an insightful addition! You've brought this discussion to yet another level, thanks.

• PRISS | July 12, 2012 6:18 PM

  >>> rolling my eyes <<<

• Daphne | July 11, 2012 5:34 PMReply

  Victoria Mahoney, Ava Duvernay, Andrew Dosunmu, Shaka King, and Djinn Carrénard

• N. Kemp | July 11, 2012 2:46 PMReply

  The Black Women are the most exciting to me. Call me a fanboy for Sanaa Hamri, Darnell Martin, Gina Bythewood, Kasi Lemons, Tanya Hamilton, Cheryl Dunye, Ava DuVernay, Dee Rees, Tina Mabry and I'm looking forward to seeing the movies of some others who I learned about on this site like Victoria Mahoney, Tanya Wright and Nefertite Nguvu. There's is a woman whose name I can't remember who directed a movie with Kimberly Elise in Africa too. Her name starts with an L I think but I cannot remember. I am really into what the sistas are doing.

• Charles Judson | July 11, 2012 1:25 PMReply

  @Carey You're hitting in the area I'm trying to get to with my second Crisis of Culture post. "First, it's my opinion "we" have fallen into the trap of embracing and championing mediocrity. It's my belief the we are so starved by the dearth of "quality" black films that when one comes along that is "good" but nothing special, we rush to put "it" on a pedestal..." I think this hits one part of the problem. And I think this comment in conjunction lay the foundation: "...seldom do we hear anything on the order of "negative" construtive feedback in regards to [MEDICINE FOR MELANCHOLY]." I'm not saying that one has to say something negative about the film, but I agree that the lack of conversation, critique and debate around the films is a huge issue and partially a source of the problem. An example is that in the last 12 months you have WOLF, THE UNDERSHEPERD and RED HOOK SUMMER all released. I haven't seen either one of them, but, I'm definitely digging the opportunity to see compare and contrast 3 films that cover such a significant part of African American (and American) life. The question is, why don't we see this type of coverage across the board? Not just reviews, but just a discussion about what makes them a like, what makes them different? What is it about 2012 that those films have come up? Over the years, the filmmakers who I'm able to have these types of conversations with are the filmmakers who tend to make stronger films and usually have more targeted points of views in their films. They also are able to course correct their careers and projects. One of the lessons I've learned is that lots of the (White Male) Directors who are doing well and are most respected all started much earlier than everyone else. They're not only well versed in film history and theory, but by the time they started getting serious, they had a personal approach to the way they make their films. They also were very articulate about what they wanted. This ties into what came out of ABFF. It's not the lack of reviews that's problematic, it's just the lack of discussions. When Mumblecore emerged a few years ago, there were hundreds of pieces written about those films over the years, covering everything from their aesthetic to questioning if they're fundamentally sexists. Amongst ourselves, how often are we having those type of discussions or raising those type of questions? This from Monkeysuit I think is major: "You have to have the highest level of passion about your work and the medium to make it that far." And there is so much truth to that. We too often confuse Hustle with Passion, Technical Prowess with Insight. One of the reasons I push for folks to go in to more depth with their comments has little to do with about right or wrong but because I think as a community we're only going to get stronger the more we talk about our work as filmmakers and creators and not just as social commentators. Again, I look to movements like the Harlem Renaissance and the French New Wave and a driver of those were on going dialogues that united, informed, shaped and challenged.

• Charles Judson | July 12, 2012 10:32 AM

  @Monkeysuit That's not just an important question, it's a critical one. S&A cannot and should not be all things to all people. It should be what Tambay, Sergio, Vanessa and others put into it. WE have to augment and add to discussion. Unfortunately, I'm still having a difficult time finding any other sites that are akin to what S&A does, or fills in the gaps that S&A doesn't fill, especially ones that approach these topics more as filmmakers and fans of film. However, I firmly believe the answer lies in our hands and it doesn't require a thousand people doing it. It just requires a few more people adding their voices and digging a little deeper. Especially on a regional scale. There's great power in just two or three people in each film community covering locally what's going on. Every community has a void. We can wait for someone else to fill it or we can do it ourselves.

• monkeysuit | July 11, 2012 10:35 PM

  I really want to have more discussions like this. Y'all know of any other spaces besides the S&A comment section? I love S&A and all, but we're limited here.

• justsaying | July 11, 2012 6:40 PM

  What @CareyCarey said! I think my previous posts responding to Laura is best placed here as most of it is for @Charles Judson. Love the direction that this thread is going in!

• Charles Judson | July 11, 2012 5:39 PM

  Thanks Carey. Working on my followup now. The great thing about these on going discussions is it helps me clarify my thoughts and points. Aiming for this weekend to have it written and after a look over, on its way to be posted. Two things drive me most: Story and Community. And I've been on the internet for 20 years this year. I try to be a "quiet" voice because I had to learn the hard way how futile (and damn addictive) "shouting" matches on the internet can be. It was a good lesson to learn. I had wanted to be a part of the film community for awhile, but it was through an old message board called Atlantafilms.com that I got my real start, and then writing for CinemATL that I was able to further establish my name and open many, many doors. My constant posting on the internet is why I have my current job and it still creates opportunities. I've been using my real name on the internet for nearly 15 years and it's been the best "brand" building decision I made. But, it also forces me to be more responsible about how I say what I say because it is my name.

• CareyCarey | July 11, 2012 4:22 PM

  Charles, on a personal note, I really appreciate the time you've put in this discussion. When I consider having a conversation with someone on a blog, it's nice to know "who they are?". I mean, it's safe to say we all have motives, a purpose and/or an "agenda" for participating in this type of discourse. So, at first I thought "who is this guy Charles Judsun who holds a wealth of knowledge -- on films in particular -- and what's his purpose?". And being the natural skeptic that I am, I thought maybe he's here to push his film festival? But the longer I listened to you, I've come to believe that you have a true passion for films (first and foremost) and remind me of Jug. He once said (since he is a struggling actor and a die hard film enthusiast), his major aim was -- on this blog -- to pass on information/knowledge that he has acquired from working in the industry... without looking for any personal rewards. That's very commendable of the both of you. And the both of you do what you do in a non-confrontational, non-threatening, "quiet" voice. So, if I had y'all hands, I'd throw mine away. Well, that's not exactly true. There's another commenter who I admire who's also in the industry, but her approach... her style of "debate" is distinctly different. In short, Bondgirl pulls no punches. She's very analytical (brings data and experince to support her argument) and goes straight to the point. Along the way she's been known to ruffle a few feathers :-). But that's an effective form of communication (it gets ones attention) in my opinion. Now you've inspired JustSaying and MonkeySuit to join in the conversation (and they're doing a damn good job (imo). "I'm not saying that one has to say something negative about the film, but I agree that the lack of conversation, critique and debate around the films [in question] is a huge issue and partially a source of the problem"... "the filmmakers who I'm able to have these types of conversations with are the filmmakers who tend to make STRONGER films and usually have more TARGETED POINTS of views in their films. They also are able to COURSE CORRECT their careers and projects"... "One of the reasons I push for folks to go in to more depth with their comments has little to do with about right or wrong but because I think as a COMMUNITY we're only going to get stronger the more we talk about our work as filmmakers and creators and not just as social commentators"... "It's not the lack of reviews that's problematic, it's just the lack of discussions!" by Charles Judson. Damn Charles, I repeated -- highlighted -- your above words b/c they were so damn poignant, and needed to be said one more time. Now how would you suggest or inspire people to drop their guards, get out of their defensive positions and aquire the needed "courage" to engage in the type of conversations that you believe will move the black film community in a positive direction? In the interim, when are you coming back with your "second Crisis of Culture post"?

• justsaying | July 11, 2012 11:40 AMReply

  @Monkeysuit and @Careycarey...I can't agree more. I feel as if a different standard is used to evaluate a lot of Black films. Films are lauded when the plot and or characters mirror life, however whether the plot is atually strong or whether the script and characters are developed enough for the story is secondary or lastly evaluated. And credit is giving to filmmakers for "telling the truth" and not making a great film. A great film will inevitably tell *a* truth. Films are given accolades for excellence in filmmaking based on the topics they explore rather than how they use the medium and their voice to explore it. Since some of these films bring in large crowds, the film is deemed a great film when really many of the viewers present are just looking for a place to heal and make sense of their own lives. I believe since we are heavily misrepresented in media in general, to provide a different portrayal of Black people is valued more than the actual craft of making a film and that shouldn't be. We are dangerously sacrificing craft just to be able to say we have someone in our corner "doing work" when we know darn well they're not up to par and there is nothing groundbreaking about what they are doing. It's fraud. By doing this we are collectively lowering the bar and awarding films that are "good" with recognition that suggest they are superb and confusing many but NOT all. You have to put in the work and make films that make those new waves first. What's the rush? No need to throw out underdog points for it being a Black film. We truly are starving @careycarey. Thirsty too.

• Charles Judson | July 12, 2012 10:19 AM

  @Justsaying I think your experience with at the screening exemplifies the importance of how we start and maintain conversations. Having lead many Q&As over the years I've learned that the greatest respect you can pay filmmakers and your audience is to ask questions that set a bar and points the discussion in a particular direction. We did a sneak peak of BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD two weeks ago and I lead a post film discussion with the audience. Having already seen it and did some research I was able to give my personal thoughts on it, bringing up the films, plays and characters that came to mind. I was also able to draw on some of the interviews that the cast and crew had done. When I turned it over to the audience they offered their own insights and observations about the film for the next 20 minutes. Some of them I was like "damn, why didn't I think of that?" And actually after one of them I did say something to that effect out loud. At the last screening of SNOW ON THA BLUFF at our 2011 festival the director for the International Black Man Film Festival got up and his first question was a shot across the bow, asking where was the hope and humanity in the film. One of the young women in the film got up and articulated why she thought the film was so important for her neighborhood. It put the film in a context that I could never achieve because I'm not from the Bluff. They went back and forth for a few more minutes and the Q&A continued. It was a great Q&A (one that was happening at 1am mind you because we played the film at 11:30pm as the last screening of the fest) and a local filmmaker with another film emailed me the next day to say it was one of the best Q&As he had seen. Audiences want to be part of the dialogue, and most filmmakers want there to be a dialogue, not just a praise fest. We all can play a role in seeing that happen. If a filmmaker can't in private offer her honest opinion I'm not sure how you can trust her creative judgment and her ability to communicate that on set, or in pre-production if she's going to be that timid. You can be critical and still be positive. You can be blunt without bludgeoning. More importantly, if keeping it positive is the extent of her contribution, it should be little wonder why we don't see larger conversations blow up from the screenings of films.

• justsaying | July 11, 2012 7:54 PM

  @careycarey, I see what you are saying. It is indeed fear. But in my questioning, I am looking to come up with creative solutions that as a result teach/incite more viewers to engage in these needed conversations. What can we do differently or focus more on that will inevitably change the culture of how a film is viewed and processed by the mass viewers. I think the idea to be "positive" and not go against the grain is learned and has become the perceived norm for many. If we can find a way to change this based on something we put into place, I believe it will push us in the right direction.

• CareyCarey | July 11, 2012 7:08 PM

  @JUSTSAYING, You asked "maybe you can also weigh in on how we can strategize to improve the culture of viewing black films so that it becomes the norm for any viewer to offer constructive criticism or evaluate a film via conversation with no inhibitions including the feeling of going against the "collective" or that they are being negative and not positive". Well Justsaying, on several occasions I've posted the following which speaks directly to your quandary -->"Many people fear nothing more terribly than to take a position which stands out sharply and clearly from the prevailing opinion. The tendency of most is to adopt a view that is so ambiguous that it will include everything and so popular that it will include everybody. Not a few men who cherish lofty and noble ideals hide them under a bushel for fear of being called different." ~ MLK. So JUSTSAYING, since I wholeheartedly believe in those wise & prophetic words (who wouldn't?) I believe the begging question is, how does anyone overcome a FEAR of being "different" and/or possibly being ostracized and "dismissed" b/c their viewpoint/perspective will -- in this context -- draw strong apposing forces. In short, how does one combat fear? That's most most perplexing question (imo).

• justsaying | July 11, 2012 6:22 PM

  @Laura I understand what you are saying and I agree that more viewers need to critique films on their own merit. @Charles Judson, I look forward to your second crisis culture post! I think many viewers would like to have more conversations about film. When you get the chance, maybe you can also weigh in on how we can strategize to improve the culture of viewing black films so that it becomes the norm for any viewer to offer constructive criticism or evaluate a film via conversation with no inhibitions including the feeling of going against the "collective" or that they are being negative and not positive. I definitely agree with what you are saying in regard to the confusion between hustle and passion and technical Prowess with Insight...I was at a film festival screening and the feature screening just wasn't cutting it. The director went on stage for the q and a. Everyone started complimenting him and being overly positive and lenient. Even the film programmer present gave the film more acclaim than it deserved, which prompted the filmmaker to then start talking about how hard it was to get his film done, how much money he spent, lack of crew etc many problems that I'm sure many filmmakers can relate to, and that really kicked it into overdrive. The audience began giving him more undeserved compliments and not asking questions or commenting on the major holes in the film etc. I offered some constructive criticism alongside what I thought worked in his film and many looked at me like I was a traitor... Later on I was trying to have a conversation with a filmmaker about films we both saw at the festival. I was interested in her thoughts about that film and others because her film was good and I think she has skills. But she danced around it and kept it "positive."

• Charles Judson | July 11, 2012 2:44 PM

  "So we are either super critical or super lenient. In both case our films are not critiqued on their own merits. We seem to hard to find that happy medium/honest assessment." <--- This right here. Again, lot of this doesn't have be critiquing films so much as having just more conversations about them.

• Laura | July 11, 2012 2:30 PM

  @Justsaying. Ok I understand your argument and I do agree. I do think we are to afraid to be honest about our films. I remember on this site some commenters were implying that if Viola Davis didn't win for Best Actress for "The Help" it was because Hollywood was up to their usual racist game. Viola was up against Meryl Streep who was playing Margaret Thatcher, for chrissake. That woman IS A BEAST. She was in the acting game when Davis was a little girl. Streep earned her Oscar fair and square. (Personally, I thought Janet McTeer should have won best supporting actress for Albert Nobbs, but I know she was the dark horse of the Oscar race.) But we can also become be super critical. (The whole pressure of we have to be twice as good as white folks to be considered half as good). I remember commenters were complaining about of Zoe Saldana playing an action hero in "Columbiana" --the unrealistic casting. Yet the crappy cringe inducing "Salt" with Angeline Jolie came out a little less then a year before. She did not make for a beleiveable action hero neither. (I saw both film) "Columbiana" was far superior film in every aspect. So we are either super critical or super lenient. In both case our films are not critiqued on their own merits. We seem to hard to find that happy medium/honest assessment. I think as a FILM MOVEMENT it is ok that we have some clunkers, because it's par for the course. Not all film are art film. Not all films have noble and grandiose ideas. Some films are just "Adam Sandler" film. I do that many of us come from the mindset of film scarcity. (A time --a generation ago-- when it was difficult to put a film together, any chance we had to tell our story was looked as a bestowed upon gift. We had to make an impact. ) That's not the case anymore. Anyone can pick up a camera and make a film. I think we can afford to let go of being super critical or super positive when reviewing our films. We can afford to let a lot of clunkers slide through AS A COLLECTIVE. Because every creative movement, era or what have you have its' bad works. Remember hearing those horrible hip hop songs during in the 70's, 80's and 90's. But only the good one come to mind when we talk about the hip hop era/old school. I'm rambling. But I hope you get the jist of what I am saying.

• justsaying | July 11, 2012 12:55 PM

  @Laura, I never said Black folks going to see a film to see themselves on the screen is a negative thing. But when we have the opportunity to see superb films with ourselves on screen, that is what I believe deserves the money and film awarding attention. I'm just weighing in on some of the reasons why some films garner a certain type of attention from influential platforms when their film is not deserving of it. Filmmakers who are producing mediocrity do not believe they are producing such films because of the shift in evaluation and the decrease of constructive criticism. I agree with you, not every film will be good, great or excellent. Many will be bad. And with that attitude we shouldn't be afraid to call a film OK when it's OK. That respectful honesty should be encouragement/motivation to be better next time around. "Not every Black film is intended to be great." If you don't at least set out to make a great film (never mind what actually happens) you're wasting your time in even trying. Once it's made, it is what it is, and it should be evaluated. I believe the ability to live up to and surpass the standards a filmmaker *talks* about (your previous films should set these standards instead) is the most important component of fan culture. You have to do what you say you are going to do (should be doing it already) and so much more.

• Laura | July 11, 2012 12:20 PM

  @JustSaying. I agree with you... to an extent. First, not all Americans, Black or White go to films because they are skill fully crafted (However we all know studio films have great production value). Many see films for entertainment because successfully marketed campaigned. We can name many films watch by the American viewing public, only to ask ourselves "WTF". Many Black folks go to film just to see themselves on the screen. Why is that a negative thing? It doesn't necessarily translate to all film makers think that it's ok to produce mediocrity. Also I don't think that we are at a stand still when it comes to story development. I think that collectively we are improving. We are at our 5th(?) film renaissance as black film makers. It's like every 20 years we have a film movement. So again we are mostly starting from scratch. We going to hick-up plenty of bad films, some ok film, some good films. Very few will be masterpieces. And sometimes time will tell (i.e. "It's A Wonderful Life", "Blade Runner", "Pepping Tom".) if film is a masterpiece, great, or a classic. Think about it, of all the films made by white male makers how many are masterpieces. A small percentage. Not every Black film is intended to be great. Some are made just for folks to escape for 2 hours. I think that the fact the Blacks want to see a Black film is a good starting point. For me it is an act of faith and trust. As film makers we can cultivate this a create a fan culture. Because I believe faithful thinking is a component in fan culture.

• CareyCarey | July 11, 2012 1:21 AMReply

  @ MonkeySuit, if I may, I have a "theory" and an opinion on the following question that you posed to Charles Judsun --> "@Judson Do you think this new generation is just simply not as good as the veterans, or do you think there's a hesitance for some reason? While watching some of these films, I felt like I was watching work that was desperately trying to be better than it was, but lacked the artistic insight and the strong POV you mentioned". Okay, I'd like to draw a parallel/analogy, using this new generation of black fimmakers and black citizens in a different sort of "quandary. First, it's my opinion "we" have fallen into the trap of embracing and championing mediocrity. It's my belief the we are so starved by the dearth of "quality" black films that when one comes along that is "good" but nothing special, we rush to put "it" on a pedestal and then say "How you like me now?". And to answer your question of why some have settled for less; filmmakers and the general audience, I hope I am not misunderstood, but I believe they just don't know any better. If those with the loudest voices and major platforms which are designed to spread the "news" are telling folks they have arrived, then why should or would they seek other avenues -- which could -- enrich their storytelling and movie making tecniques? Granted, there are reasons why they should "change" but for argument sake, lets move forward. In the field of alcohol and drug abuse, the white communitie's recover rate far exceeds that of their black counterparts. And truth be told, on the whole most people (the overwelming majority, above 99%) who fall into the grips of addiction never recover. But again, blacks suffer the most. WHY? First and foremost, the "victim"; be he rich or poor, educated with a strong support system, are given an outdated model of recocery and therefore, they simple do not know any better. In essence, they are gien the wrong road map from the jump. So they fail, over and over and over again. But when one makes it pass the starting line (especially a black one) oh lord, they are paraded out to support system in place. Then they, consequently, believe their own hype and then they become the voice of wisdom, passing along that same ambiguous information that generally lacks strong foundations. More importantly, many on the outside (and more on the inside) are hestitant to "criticise" this new beckon of light (even when it's obvious to many that they are doing "wrong") b/c... well, you know the saying "Praise in public, correct in private". So the most defining messages go muted. So goes the new wave black filmmakers. Medicine for Melancholy (a popular choice) was a good film, but nothing to shout about. Yet, seldom do we hear anything on the order of "negative" construtive feedback in regards to that film. The same can be said about "Pariah", "The Night Catches Us" and a host of other "black" films that we're quick to rave about. We are starving and thus settling for mediocrity. And a small few desire to be the voice that sings a different song. Who wants to risk the chance of being ostracized and scorned from the black community of filmmakers?

• MARK & DARLA | July 10, 2012 1:28 AMReply

  Not a hype fan of any director, who the director is, will not determine whether I see a movie or not. For me it is the subject, enticing trailer and promotion.

• bondgirl | July 9, 2012 11:14 PMReply

  I'm looking forward to the usual suspects and their upcoming projects (Dee Rees, McQueen, Ava Duvernay), but I'm interested to see what some dark horses are going to bring as well. Folks like Tyra Banks, Yolonda Ross, and Victoria Mahoney haven't presented their short/feature yet for wide release, but I'd like to see their filmmaking debuts when it happens. Oh, and I agree with Monkeysuit.

• PRISS | July 12, 2012 6:21 PM

  I disagree with Monkeysuit but I like your usual suspects and dark horses quite a lot. I didn't know Tyra was directing. Also Salli Richardson and Regina King are directing these days too. Very interesting to see what these women who are getting "aged out" of the sexist Hollywood casting system as actresses will do with newfound directorial passion.

• melody | July 9, 2012 10:55 PMReply

  To reveal some of my own ignorance, I don't know a lot of the up and comers, because (like Laura said) they're not making films consistently. Which is not exactly their fault. I'm also a fan of indie films with weird or atypical stories, so something like "Think Like A Man" does not interest me at all. However, I'm super stoked for "Dear White People" and almost all of the new black TV shows ("Black Dynamite", "Scandal")! I honestly feel like TV is where all the dynamic ideas for black film and black people are going, but that's another post for another day. I get caught up in the idea that I should support something just because black actors are in it or just because I saw it on Shadow & Act. There's the very reason possibility that I'm setting myself up for disappointment when I do that... how can I get excited when I'm thinking that? And I don't really know if "seeing it just because they're black" is a good enough reason to part with my $12. As much as I love film and critique them in my heads while I'm watching and dream of writing them someday as well, I want to be entertained, too. So my money might stay in my pocket if I'm not intrigued enough by this new black filmmaker's skills. Especially when I know I won't be disappointed by the Nolan film screening in the other theater.

• CareyCarey | July 9, 2012 10:18 PMReply

  2 major thoughts. I have to go with "Monkeysuit" on this one (although I feel a little silly riding with a guy in a monkey suit ;-O). I mean, truth be told, as he said "I hate to sound like a hater, but none of them ( the new wave directors) have really wowed me, so there's no one to get geeked over unless we're talking about the veterans." Tanya Hamilton's Night Catches Us and Dee Ree's "Pariah",,, for what they were, they were "good", but definitely were not top tier films. Speaking of top shelf, I can drink a 2 dollar bottle of cheap wine and get just as drunk, which leads me to my second point. Listen, because I can be a fanboy of the "Hug me like you love me" directors/producers, I am looking forward to the trickle down affects from distributors Code Black and directors/producers like Russ Parr, David E. Talbert and T.D. Jakes. See, I would say that one other guy's name?... "Ty", or something like that, but I don't want to get run out of this joint. But I'm serious, since there IS a dearth of black films, I know the above are going to bring me black faces -- in black films -- which my lady and I can watch and enjoy. They may not be of the "cognac" variety, but they are going to do -- what they are suppose to do -- which is to entertain me and mine. Granted, they may not be of cinematic spendor nor "critically acclaimed" but many of our talented black actors appear in many of them. Heck, I just saw Micheal Beach in Talbert's "A Fool and His Money". Okay-okay, I have to admit it was poorly written and the singers were nothing like those Tyler Perry can afford ( and thus the singing fell flat) and the ending was campy, stale and... you know, but nevertheless, it was entertaining. Heck, when I think of CodeBlack and "faith based" films, I see black faces like Nia Long, Evan Ross, Lynn Whitfield, Isaiah Washington, Clifton Powell, Vivica Fox, Dorian Missick, Roger Guenvuer Smith and many many more. So maybe the fanboy's bugle should be blowing the tune of CodeBlack? Hey, they also brought us Kevin Hart and his "Pineapple baby, Pineapple" skit (inside joke for those who saw the movie :-) it was funny as hell and a bite). Through it all, I am suggesting that "it ain't no fun when the rabbit has the gun" for some - huh? Millions of black amercians are spending millions of dollars on movies, having loads of fun, excitement and entertainment on films that "critical" film watchers would "fan" a fart over. *LOL* I come to believe there is no way of getting beyond one's own impressions to arrive at some larger, objective truth. There are no rules to art, only the infinite variety of subjective experience. Beauty is no quality in things themselves. It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them, and I am reaching out like an octopus, baby, I likw them all! Fan the fans, fanboys; raise the banners for Ya'Ke Smith (director of "Wolf") . Stoke the fires for Russ Parr and those behind films like "Preacher's Kid", "Note to Self", "Woman Thou Art Loosed" "Mamma I Wanna Sing", "Father Of Lies", "Gospel", "Joyful Noise", "Let It Shine", and Tyler Perry's stage plays. ~CareyCarey

• Tyler Perry | July 9, 2012 10:18 PMReply

  Hate to self promote, but uh.....

• Laura | July 9, 2012 6:50 PMReply

  There are not many Black filmmakers that I can say I am excited about, because their are not many Black filmmaker that produce steady work. I like, The Hughes Brothers, Ava Duvernay, Steve McQueen, Carl Franklin, Terence Nance, Spike Lee and Kasi Lemmons. Those are some I can name of the top of my head that have track records. There's Tanya Hamilton, Barry Jenkins, Dee Rees, Tina Mabry, Pete Chatmon, Andrew Donsunmu and Dennis Dortch, that I would follow their films because I want to support their work them because I think that the potential to do great films or there or because I have not had a chance to see their films previously. I know that I am leaving names out in both group. I am a sci fi horror film fan. I will see their films. I think they are good film makers. I would like to see other film makers coming up the pipe.

• Critical acclaim | July 9, 2012 4:43 PMReply

  I'm excited by these pictures I just looked at for Half of a Yellow Sun and whoever that filmmaker is. To be a fanboy I guess that means I'd go see anything by that director just because itbis made by them. Under that criteria with respect to newer directors I'd say Steve McQueen, Ava Duvernay and Terrence Nance are probably the people I'm most excited by after seeing their work and would be wanting to see whatever else they make on general principle. I'd say Barry Jenkins too although he can't live on past glory for many years longer without becoming the modern day Theodore Witcher (look him up). With that said, Witcher is still on my list id see what he put out sight unseen. I am a huge fan of Tanya Hamilton and think Night Catches Us was exceptional and would go to see anything she does.

• Patty | July 9, 2012 6:41 PM

  I agree with McQueen, Nance, DuVernay, Jenkins. Andrew Dosunmu, Lee Daniels and Alain Gomis I'd add. I will see anything that all of the above create.

• tepnlex | July 9, 2012 1:59 PMReply

  S &A covers all bases as thoroughly as a blog can.
  I'd like more on the business side of things, distribution overseas, and in what markets, etc.
  I am a fan of the process, taking a script, and breaking it down, financing it, casting it, scouting locations, shooting, etc. All the way to the world premiere. You all have done a fantastic job of that, but if there is more where that came from, I definitely won't complain.

• Terri | July 9, 2012 12:37 PMReply

  I didn't reply because there's no indie or Hollywood figure of African Diaspora Cinema that I'm unexcited about. I'm a fan of the project -- of black film and if I could watch everything I would.
  
  I'm already excited about Shadow and Act in general. And I'm happy to be carried along by the capacious and eye-opening coverage you provide.
  
  There is one thing though ... I love film stills, whether the old-time kind that was a sort of composite that represented the film or screen grabs that isolate a frame. And also sound clips. And movie posters. Just for that visceral connection to the action, beauty or whatever of a movie or movie memory.

• Guyver | July 9, 2012 11:49 AMReply

  I am an uber fan of writer, director R.L. Scott. He has consistently shown great writing, directing, casting and extremely high production value in his projects... and they keep getting bigger and bigger. He also shoots his own movies aside from working with DPs. Some of his movies are "Tribu De Combat," "Champion Road 2011," and the web series "Touye Pwen." Right now he is shooting a big action movie called "Kill Point" that stars Bai Ling, Chris Mulkey, Lester Speight, Alimi Ballard, Gabrielle Dennis and a bunch of other people... cannot wait to see it. Dudes got skills for real.

• Jason Pollard | July 9, 2012 11:28 AMReply

  I am excited about a number of independent black filmmakers Dee Rees, Rashard Ernesto Green, Alrick Brown, Ava Duvernay, Raafi Rivero, Randy Wilkins, Rod Gailes, Seith Mann, the list goes on and on. From the "mainstream"..I'm interested in seeing what Kasi Lemmons and Rick Famuyiwa do next.

• monkeysuit | July 9, 2012 10:14 AMReply

  Speaking personally, the truth is, I've been disappointed by the black filmmakers who have been getting play in the last few years. Nelson George's piece on the "New Black Film Wave" reminded me how mediocre a lot of these movies from the new generation have been. I hate to sound like a hater, but none of them have really wowed me so there's no one to get geeked over unless we're talking about the veterans. A couple of exceptions for me would be Steve McQueen and Bradford Young (not a director, but his DP work in "Restless City" overshadowed the directing and writing saving the entire film). That's why I think George's claim was premature. We're lacking masterpieces. I don't think it's because there aren't talented filmmakers out there, or the ones that everyone is talking about now just aren't good enough. I think there's potential that for whatever reason hasn't been reached yet. I guess we have to consider that most of them are only on their first film, which is most filmmakers' worst. But even for a first, I'm skeptical. "She's Gotta Have It" wasn't the greatest film, but Lee's voice was screaming throughout it. You could tell this was a work by someone who artistically knows himself. I couldn't feel that in any of the black films I've seen recently except from the artists I mentioned before.

• Laura | July 11, 2012 11:29 AM

  Oops. I meant to say: Making and distributing a film is a Herculean task.

• Laura | July 11, 2012 11:26 AM

  @Monkeysuit. I know a person who works behind the scene in the film industry. He worked on a lot of east coast projects (i.e. cable movies and series, and unionized indie films. We are both POC. He's been in the game for 20+ years. I've only been the game for 2 years. We talk about the inherent racism in the industry. But there's one thing that we agreed upon. This industry is not for the faint of heart by any stretch of the imagination. He told me that of all the people that graduated in his class from NYU undergraduate film program, (most of them were white males) he and two other people are still in the field. That says a lot. Making film is a Herculean task. It is a long arduous marathon and most will not be able to make it to the finish line.

• monkeysuit | July 10, 2012 11:19 PM

  @Laura I would agree with you, but like Spike Lee said, "straight up and down, film work is hard shit." To get a feature made * independently* and then have it screened theatrically, that is truly some difficult, masochistic shit. You have to have the highest level of passion about your work and the medium to make it that far. Fanatical doesn't even begin to describe the amount of physical, mental and emotional torture these guys put themselves through for the sake of the art. I think the democratization you're talking about applies more to the online world. Anybody with a DSLR can upload something on vimeo and then tweet about it. But I have to give more respect to those who make it to the theaters and not categorize them with hipsters with Canons. Because very few people have the stamina let alone the heart for this kind of work. And I don't subscribe to the belief that art is only for blessed. I think innate ability doesn't go nearly as far as passion and really, really hard-ass work. If you have the unshakable urge to tell stories and you study tirelessly to improve your ability, then you are capable of creating something great. But I think the most important part of it is to know who you are-- know your voice and trust it more than anything in the world.

• Laura | July 10, 2012 9:39 PM

  @Monkeysuit. You asked; "I felt like I was watching work that was desperately trying to be better than it was, but lacked the artistic insight and the strong POV you mentioned. It's like they read the manual on filmmaking and decided to do it without having much to say." I would venture to say that the democratization of filmmaking made so that any one can pick up a camera and make a film. I would argue that back in the day filmmaking was a vetting process. All but the "fanatical" were weeded out. Fanatical people have very strong points of view. Also I think that there is an entitlement mentality in the arts today. Just because one wants to create does not mean that their work is suitable for public viewing.

• monkeysuit | July 10, 2012 5:07 PM

  @Judson Do you think this new generation is just simply not as good as the veterans, or do you think there's a hesitance for some reason? While watching some of these films, I felt like I was watching work that was desperately trying to be better than it was, but lacked the artistic insight and the strong POV you mentioned. It's like they read the manual on filmmaking and decided to do it without having much to say. Is it a) because the directors aren't capable of doing better b) they haven't grown enough yet c) they're afraid of not getting funding for more challenging pieces or d) they're rushed. Or maybe something else?

• Charles Judson | July 10, 2012 1:16 PM

  Can a brotha get an edit button and some paragraph breaks up in here? One of those sentences should read: "It's in how you use them that will determine how well your story succeeds."

• Charles Judson | July 10, 2012 1:10 PM

  I think the question is less about masterpieces and more to your point about the impact of films like SHE'S GOTTA HAVE IT and filmmakers like Spike in general. Spike is a force to be reckoned with. If you look to film history you'll notice almost all the most well known directors are forceful with strong POV. Be it Terrence Malick's "I don't give a f*ck" nonchalance or Truffaut's willingness to lead a boycott at the 1968 Cannes. EVE'S BAYOU still resonates because Lemons is willing to go into some very dark places and not just dabble, but linger. It's the difference in August Wilson's characters who can have dark hearts, with ugliness tattooed on their souls that their wrestling with and uncomplicated Tyler Perry style characters who are bad because they do bad things. In terms of storytelling, they're both valid. You can tell a variety of stories using each. It in how use them that will determine how well your story succeeds. In the more esoteric terms of getting under your skin and forcing you to ask tough questions and facing aspects of yourself you don't want to admit that are there, that's where the shades of difference come into it. One you instantly know is in the wrong, the other you can empathize with and maybe even realize you agree with, which can make you uncomfortable, or uncomfortable that it makes you comfortable. In general, I think we're still learning how to be more vulnerable as a filmmaking community at large. As such, we still collectively avoid asking large human questions using smaller focused lenses in favor of films that answer questions and then try to make magnify conclusions from that out to a large scale. Which makes not only for an ill fit depending on if those conclusions are aimed at an individual or at a community, it makes it difficult for anyone else to come to the work and draw what they want from it. What we need are more personal filmmakers who are willing to dig deeper and go the places others won't. How many filmmakers do you consider explorers who take you to places you didn't even know existed? How many do you think of as tour guides who show you places you already know about and have already been well tread by others? Good storytelling has the familiar. Powerful storytelling is finding the familiar in the unknown.

• monkeysuit | July 10, 2012 12:28 AM

  In regards to your masterpiece question, there are several factors that go into it, and I think it's less subjective than you think. Great stories have a quality that I believe even uninformed audiences can feel. All the pieces have to come together from the characters to the conflict to the growth to the structure. And I truly believe time, care and talent are the key ingredients. And of course a big budget doesn't hurt.

• monkeysuit | July 10, 2012 12:22 AM

  Haha, I wasn't calling her a bitch. I just thought it would be bitchy to tell someone to study just because they had a different opinion about a film than me. If that vicariously applies to her .....well... *kanye shrug*. Anyways, I haven't seen "Oversimplification," but it wasn't that "Restless City" was unconventional in its approach, it's that it lacked a coherent plot outside of cliché women is a man's demise thing. Plus there were too many things introduced that wasn't carried out and the pacing was uneven and it was disorganized and blah.. blah... In conclusion, it was a mess. And that's not an unpopular opinion go check out the reviews. Something as beautiful as it was aesthetically could've received beaucoup hype had it been well put together, which was so frustrating for me. I mean, here you have decent actors, beautiful shots and environments with little to say. It was tragic. I don't regret the money I paid though. Young's work was one of the most inspiring things I saw all year. So I still highly recommend the film, but I am taken aback by anyone who can say that was an overall good movie with a straight face.

• CareyCarey | July 10, 2012 12:13 AM

  @Artbizzy.. "But what makes a masterpiece a masterpiece? Isn't that subjective? Damn good question! On a large scale, I believe a masterpiece is defined as such when the overwhelming majority of movie-goers and "critic" agree that it's something special. Howcver, from an individuals viewpoint, it is highly subjective. On that note, you thought Kim Wayan's performance was the best thing about Pariah, well, I actually thought she came in third or forth. I thought the father did the best job with the lead actress close by. My lady thought some of the smaller parts caught her eye. That's an interesting perspective because her daughter is a lesbian of the butch variety, so we are around "them" on a regular basis... verrrrrry interesting to say the least. In fact, this weekend 2 of her "girlfriend's" sons stayed overnight for a going away party (for an eight year old leaving for Atlanta). Yes, it's all very subjective; arising from our own personal experiences, likes and dislikes. Oh, btw, her lesbian daughter is married to "another" woman (It's legal in Iowa). This chick was the chick on the side - ouch! @ MonjeySuit, C'mon now, you can't be calling people the B-word up in here *lol*. RE: Storytelling -- As you implied Artbizzy, there "should-be" no rules b/c again, it's all in the ears of the beholder. I am reminded of the common phrase of the hit tv series "Bandstand". When judging a new song, the kids were frequently heard saying "it had a nice beat and it's easy to dance to, so I gave it a 80" nuff said :-)

• artbizzy | July 9, 2012 11:21 PM

  @MonkeySuit The B-word?! C'mon...lol. We're all a little pretentious on here thinking our opinions are truth, (myself included) Don'tchathink? Ease up selecta. I do appreciate your points though and agree to some degree. Patty's 'study' command was lol though. Oh the internets...Anyway, what is basic storytelling, though? Terence Nance in "Oversimplicfication" didn't tell his story through basic storytelling. I enjoyed his approach though. But of course it's not mainstream which of course doesn't mean something isn't necessarily good per se. We are conditoned from when we are young about how to tell stories and read stories. I personally think this goes against what storytelling is actually about and keeps us less inventive and innovative. Who made these rules? Aristotle? Joseph Campbell? I did not see "Restless City" but I am now curious about it. But I guess if something doesn't work it doesn't work whether conventional or not.
  
  On another point I enjoyed Pariah but I found Kim Wayans character to be the most interesting. The most complex and layered. I think had she been showcased more in context of her daughter's journey I think Pariah could have been more of a masterpiece. Like say the movie, Ordinary People, starring Mary Tyler Moore, the Mother's presence, her struggle to accept the death of her son was so touching and infuriating at the same time. It might also be the actors too. I thought the actor who played the main character did well but it was Kim Wayans layered performance that stood out for me. Same thing with Gun Hill Road. Esai Morales journey within the context of his son's journey was much more interesting to me. Or the guy that the son started dating who ended up shunning him, What we need is more young actors or actors period who are willing to go there. Like Hayley Joe Osment in AI or Meghan Good in Eve's Bayou or both of the actresses who starred in Imitation of Life. But what makes a masterpiece a masterpiece? Isn't that subjective?

• Reel Deal hollyfiled | July 9, 2012 11:11 PM

  @ Monkey suit I agree with you 100% we lack masterpieces and the list you came up with was exactly what I was thinking. We need to set the bar higher for our people. The ones out there are ok at best but not great enough. Artistically we need to work harder and study the craft more. Steve MacQueen is the exception and you can tell he is really into the craft of making good shit. We need more like him

• Monkeysuit | July 9, 2012 10:45 PM

  @Patty You don't know much about basic story-telling if you think "Restless City" achieved anything beyond beautiful photography, production and costume design. I would tell you to study too, but I try to refrain from acting like a pretentious bitch.

• Nadine | July 9, 2012 6:58 PM

  Ooo...chile... again, what monkeysuit said. That was not a rant... just truth!

• Patty | July 9, 2012 6:37 PM

  You don't know much about filmmaking if you believe Restless City wasn't a directing achievement. Study.

• monkeysuit | July 9, 2012 3:02 PM

  Oh I'll support, but if you make something I'm not a fan of, don't expect me to come see your next film just because you're black. Some of the hype around these guys was completely undeserved, and that was reflected in the box office numbers. It felt like forced enthusiasm, which isn't effective. "Pariah" was a perfect example of that. Some people even suggested it should've been nominated for an Academy. I was like c'mon! I know times are hard for black art, but we don't have to settle for mediocrity. Greater things have been made in worse circumstances. I'm not saying "Pariah" was bad. For what it was, it was good. But it definitely wasn't the top tier film it was promoted to be. Especially in times like these, we have to do better for ourselves and our people and not get caught up in the fact that there's so few of us producing work. It shouldn't be art for the sake of it, but rather producing art that was painstakingly crafted as a reflection of the self--the human experience. Not something that's trying to be other people's reflections. Rant, over.

• Fritz Archer | July 9, 2012 12:07 PM

  @Monkeysuit I think you have to look at the big picture here. Many are on their first and second films so a masterpiece may not be on the horizon for awhile. A bit of history: It took John Ford one of America's greatest directors over a decade to make his first "masterpiece", Stagecoach. This was with resources, a studio and an audience. His voice developed because of the two. Black filmmakers may be able to make films without a studio but they certainly won't be able to survive without a healthy, eager audience to help develop that voice. Spike was a rarity. Just like Orson Welles was at his first at bat. If you want to see masterpieces then you're going to have to be supportive viewer and it will come.

• Nadine | July 9, 2012 11:08 AM

  ...what @monkeysuit said.