Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

The Devil’s Eye Syndrome: Creative Jealousy Against the Black Independent Filmmaker

by Andre Seewood
July 14, 2014 2:50 PM
  • |
"Black Skin White Masks: The Experiences of a Black Man in a White World" - Frantz Fanon

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn’t exist.” –Charles Baudelaire

It is something peculiar that I had noticed decades ago from the first time I screened one of my own short films and began writing film criticism: many of us as Black people spew our most harsh and bitter criticism towards Black Independent films and yet rush to see White studio films without so much as raising a question concerning the plausibility of the content (or lack thereof) nor an objection to the lack of diversity in casting and/or the continuation of stigmatizing racial tropes and stereotypes.  As long as there is action, explosions and state-of-the-art CGI any negative criticism of White studio films is suspended.  And if by chance such negative criticism is raised against a White studio film it is summarily disbelieved in the face of astronomical weekend unadjusted box office grosses.  I mean I have witnessed some very intelligent Black people rip a Black independent film to shreds as if they were the sole surviving authenticators of Shakespeare’s lost plays, but then turn around and pay extra money to see Michael Bay’s TRANSFORMERS (1, 2, 3 and 4) without ever saying anything negative about a White studio film that would approach the severity and bitterness of the negative criticism they would level at a Black independent film.

It reminds me of that punch line to the comedian’s old joke about what the Black servant says to the coughing White man: “What’s the matter boss, WE sick?”

What used to cause me a mild form of bemusement, I am now beginning to understand as a peculiar form of creative jealousy expressed towards Black independent film and/or filmmakers by others of their own race that can ultimately have devastating consequences for the development of all up and coming Black filmmakers and for the preservation and continuation of Black film in general.

In this article I would like to examine in detail this peculiar phenomenon of critical hypocrisy that I will define here as The Devil’s Eye Syndrome.  The Devil’s Eye Syndrome is the deliberate critical rejection of Black independent film by Black spectators which manifests itself as a severe and bitter criticism of a Black independent film to the degree that no other commercial White studio film would be able to withstand nor would these Black spectators dare apply such “high standards” to a White film.  I would like to explore how this critical hypocrisy is expressed and maintained often by those closest to us as filmmakers: family, friends and loved ones.  Most importantly I would like to offer suggestions concerning how developing Black filmmakers can protect themselves from this vicious form of self-hatred and creative jealousy disguised as criticism.

What differentiates the Devil’s Eye Syndrome from legitimate film criticism or even constructive criticism is that both the former and the latter forms of criticism are posited from a set of clearly defined principles and standards that can be traced back to their aesthetic or philosophical foundations.  These principals and standards should be applied consistently across various films and film genres regardless of the color of the skin of the filmmakers.  At least that’s what passes for the ideal towards which every critic should strive.  For example, the American critic Andrew Sarris (1928-2012) who is largely credited with importing the French critical notion of the auteur theory to the United States in his book, American Cinema: Directors and Directions 1929-1968, detailed extensively his critical assessments of a vast majority of American and European filmmakers (mostly all White) up until the time of the book’s first edition released in 1968.  Although I don’t always agree with Sarris’ assessments of the films and the careers of many filmmakers, his critical ideas have a foundation and apply a standard which can be traced back to the French critics and filmmakers (Godard, Truffaut, Rohmer, et al) and perhaps can be traced back further to 19th century French romanticism.

In any case, Sarris worked from an established set of principles and attempted to apply his standards consistently, even if the results were not always shared by others.

By contrast, the Devil’s Eye Syndrome is merely a negative attitude that pretends to be legitimate or constructive criticism that either has no set of principles and standards that can be traced back to their foundations or it’s a negative attitude held against a specific kind of film (Black independent film) and the specific race of the filmmaker (Black) expressed as standards and principles that are ultimately arbitrary and inconsistent.  My concern here is that we as Black people are unconsciously predisposed to practice this form of critical hypocrisy towards our own up and coming Black filmmakers and we are unwittingly adding to the existing difficulties many Black independent filmmakers are facing in this White controlled industry.  This article is an attempt to answer the questions of ‘Whom, How &Why?’

Specifically those who look at a Black film through a Devil’s Eye seek out what makes the Black artist’s work unique, different, or challenging and negatively criticizes these aspects to make the artist conform to false conventions, accepted stereotypes, and unrealistic standards.

In short, these “critics” tell you your work isn’t good enough because it is different and/or challenges their expectations- then they turn around and watch the absolute worst that Hollywood has to offer without questioning or challenging anything the White controlled American Entertainment Complex presents as realistic.  

This form of critical hypocrisy is at its most powerful when it is practiced against Black filmmakers by family, friends and loved ones; that is to say, this negativity is manifested often times at the most personal level against the Black artist when the artist is at his or her most vulnerable and trust seeking condition.  This is not to say that the casual observer cannot look at the Black independent filmmaker’s work through a Devil’s Eye.  But the casual observer’s negativity can often easily be dismissed as “Hating” whereas the intimate observer is someone who says they love you- but still rejects your work for reasons they cannot consistently uphold or trace back to foundations and standards to which they consistently adhere.  It’s not the criticism that destroys, so much as it is the destructive hypocrisy that such so-called “honest” criticism disguises.

So now that we know who is practicing this negativity towards Black independent filmmakers and their films let’s look at how it is practiced against the Black filmmaker through the derogatory assessments of their work.

The negativity within the critical hypocrisy of the Devil’s Eye Syndrome as practiced by the intimate or the casual observer of a Black independent filmmaker’s work is usually centered within three specific parameters:

1) Narrative Structure

2) Acting

3) Production Values/Budget

Beginning with Narrative Structure, we know that in the filmic art all of the events within a story do not have to seen on screen for the story to be understood.  The various omissions of explanatory scenes, exposition in dialogue, and other scenes of transportation or transition contribute directly to the specific narrative dynamism of the cinematic language which differentiates cinema as an art form from literature and theatre.  But most importantly certain omissions of events, actions and causal circumstances encourages the viewing audience to make assumptions that fill in the story gaps and are directly correlated to the stylistic voice of the filmmaker: the visual and editorial signature of the auteur that can be discerned within a single film and/or over the course of several films.

Recall, for example, the omission of the jewelry store robbery scene in Tarantino’s RESEVOIR DOGS (1992) which gave dramatic urgency to the events that were shown after the omission.  Already, here in this first film, Tarantino was establishing a distinct authorial voice in the cinema by challenging the conventional telling of a tale in deliberately choosing to omit a scene that usually defines the genre of a heist film which is the heist itself.  

Yet when a Black independent filmmaker attempts to “tamper” with narrative structure in the attempt to establish an artistic voice and a distinctive cinematic style all too often the casual or the intimate spectator will point out the gaps in the story as flaws; that is to say, they look at the independent film through the Devil’s Eye which gives them license to deny making the assumptions they would normally make to fill in the gaps while watching a White studio film and accuse the Black independent filmmaker of shoddy or poor storytelling abilities.

To use a personal example, I recall an incident concerning a short film I had made several years ago titled, WASTELAND, which will be available to stream on-line shortly.  I was confronted by an acquaintance who claimed to have had viewed the film and complained about what they saw as a structural flaw in the telling of the story.  In this film, which was my first attempt at creating what I would eventually identify as a Seduction Narrative in my book Screenwriting Into Film (See: pgs. 94-97 or the films: Psycho, Spider, The Sixth Sense), a young man quits high school and literally walks into a hellish nightmare of murder and mayhem after he witnesses a brutal crime by another man that very same day.  Yet one of the main points of criticism of the film by my acquaintance was centered on the fact that when the young man leaves on foot from his high school located in Mid-town Detroit I used a slow dissolve to another scene of the young man walking in Downtown Detroit.  The alleged flaw, as it was explained to me, was that no one could walk from Mid-town Detroit to Downtown Detroit in such a short time frame.  

Needless to say, I was taken aback.

The slow dissolve between two shots of a young man walking was apparently not enough to imply the passage of time nor was it enough to signify that time had been cut out to render these transitional scenes cinematically dynamic.  The fact that the two shots mirrored each other graphically with one shot having the young man walking away from the camera on the right side of the screen and the next shot which slowly dissolved over it was of the young man walking towards the camera on the left side of the screen was apparently also not held in any esteem by my critic.

I quickly realized that the acquaintance was deliberately attempting to deny me the artistic license to use a very basic formal device of cinematic narration (the dissolve) to structure my film according to my own stylistic predilections.  The hypocrisy here is that this very same acquaintance would unquestioningly accept such basic and well understood formal devices of time compression from a White studio film produced in any city with whose geography they would not be so familiar.  

What is being revealed is that when the Devil’s Eye is applied to Black independent film as it concerns narrative structure one is often challenged with absurd and arbitrary criticism of basic formal and narrative paradigms that every film artist no matter what their skin color is free to change or adhere to according to the themes they are pursuing in their specific work.

While it is certainly true that the omission of scenes for the effect of style must follow through in some form of emotional, circumstantial or thematic logic that informs the entire film so that such omissions are not truly the result of flawed storytelling, careful omissions of scenes or actions are fundamental to the dynamism of cinematic narration.

Often when intimate and/or casual observers view the work of Black independent filmmakers they see the necessary story gaps and omissions of filmic narration as flaws in storytelling rather than the conventions of filmic narration deliberately applied by the Black independent filmmaker as a matter of style.

  • |

More: Things That Make You Go Hmm...

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    


  • Ras the Exhorter | August 20, 2014 9:06 PMReply

    Excellent article, and while I'm guilty of holding, at times, unrelenting lens to Black Cinema, I'm intimately familiar with many of the film criticism theories that give foundation to the process (having reader much of JLG & Truffaut's work in Cahiers du Cinema), and can adjust my acceptance and criticism style. For instance, FRUITVALE STATION had some production design limitations and film grammar issues, but they didn't distract from the potency of the story.

    Three crucial points -- "the question of acting ability often rests upon how well one is familiar with an actor’s star persona as well as the cumulative effect of those popular studio films"; "what really happens to a dream deferred is that it returns as jealousy against others trying to be heard"; and "Express yourself too distinctly in film and you’ll never work in Hollywood (not that you should want to work there); express yourself too conventionally and you’ll get the job in Hollywood, but very few people will be able to tell your film from anyone else’s film (e.g., Tim Story)".

    These points underscore why the critique is far too harsh, but can we also add that a frisson is created by the filmmaker who has exposed him- or herself to non-American cinema and then injected cinematic styles -- that have been proved valid -- in his or her work that the intended audience isn't unaccustomed to/aware of, and this might/does cause a disconnect. For example, in Justin Simien's upcoming DEAR WHITE PEOPLE there is more than a clear homage to Stanley Kubrick's BARRY LYNDON (he'll even admit to it) in terms shot selection and composition, and score (exact same music cues); and this was intriguing to me, because I adore and have studied Kubrick's film. Yet, those were some of the elements that rubbed other audience members the wrong way. I doubt that 90% of the intended audience has a) seen Kubrick's film and b) recognize the genius in that film, and c) can understand why Simien borrowed so liberally; each film is about social climbing, so it makes a lot of sense for an artistic point of view. Yet I know this kind of homage isn't respected.

    Acting is ultimately subjective, but unknowns have a much harder time being "believed", when the exact opposite should be true... and the point about indie directors spending an inordinate amount of time conveying to their cast, "do act, show me truthful behavior" is a problem, because the "acting" is typically emulating arch behavior that is wrongly celebrated (and given acceptance by it being continually paraded around in reality shows and derogatory news clips) that perhaps truthful behavior -- on-screen -- appears alien and false.

    One of my biggest gripes about Black Cinema is far too much of it tries to be too experiential; in that the stories are shackled to events that feel "normal" and "that's how it is" to the Black audience; the so-called Black experience. Yet, white Hollywood films rarely do this -- a film as arch and zany as BRIDESMAIDS or WEDDING CRASHERS is so far removed from a true-to-life story it's not even funny, but its lunacy is what we go to the movies to see or the heightened suspense of a thriller is beyond the pale of what happens in every day life. In contrast, the arch behavior (and very much stereotyped behavior) in Tyler Perry films command a huge audience (the filmmaking technique is abysmal).

    Peter Bogdanovich compiled an interesting book on his interviews with celebrated directors from Hollywood's Golden Age, "How The Devil Made It", and it underscores filmic techniques and director hang-ups that become a director's style. There has been some startling and original voices in Black Cinema in the past three years alone, yet distinctive style, sadly, rarely presents itself...even when there is a budget to warrant it. White indie filmmakers find ways to work within the confines of conventional cinematic grammar AND express themselves artistically.

    The biggest issue confronting Black filmmakers is ability to create a body of work, and the grow as an artist.

  • Masha Dowell | August 8, 2014 4:17 PMReply

    This is an amazing post! Thanks!!

  • Anonymous | July 30, 2014 2:39 PMReply

    Very detailed and articulate assessment and raises a few points that me and my circle of artists friends have on a consistent basis.

    Wanted to add another potential cause of this lopsided scrutiny of independent black film by black film audiences. The 'scarcity' idea. Me and a friend call it the 'there may only be one' rule. Black audiences have a sense of there only being one major black film and only one noteworthy black filmmaker per year. Whatever movie is most talked about or marketed to them becomes the only black film worth talking about or watching. Where white independent filmmakers thrive on a niche audience that expects a large number of films being produced per year I fear the black audience is always waiting for that 'one' black film that will mean anything for them. There will be one black filmmaker who is important for the year and everything is considered not worth the time. That attitude hurts black independent film more than anything because the audience doesn't know to look for more work by more artists. I think this is slowly changing with the cost of independent filmmaking going down and more of the filmmakers having access to get their films out to wider audiences with netflix, iTunes, etc. But until this attitude of the audiences changes it will be hard to cultivate a sustainable audience for black independent film.

    With all that being said, if anyone is a filmmaker and gets discouraged by any of this...then you may not have been a filmmaker from the beginning. Tough skin is the name of the game and usually no one cares what they hell we make until the stars align, the work has paid off and the time becomes right and people finally take notice.

    Great essay.

  • Andre Seewood | July 31, 2014 5:58 PM

    @Anonymous, thanks for your commentary. The notion of "the scarcity idea" that you have put forth is quite intriguing. You state that," Black audiences have a sense of there only being one major black film and only one noteworthy black filmmaker per year. Whatever movie is most talked about or marketed to them becomes the only black film Worth talking about or watching." But I think that this perspective you are describing is but a consequence of how the power brokers, studio heads and marketing execs of the White controlled American Entertainment Complex perceive all Black films (regardless of subject, theme or content) as one niche genre. Thus, a Black film is marketed and released as the representative of an entire genre- as opposed to White films which are selected and grouped according to the genre of each individual film. In many ways, the perception of Black films as a singular niche genre appealing to a singular niche domestic audience regardless of the individual characteristics of a particular Black film reifies the same European mentality that looked upon the diverse tribes of Africa as one singular group of people defined by skin color regardless of language, custom, religious and geographic differences. What you and your friend have perceptively called "the scarcity idea" with regard to Black audiences and Black films- I referred to as "Starving the Market: Genre Cycles" in my book Slave Cinema and the discussion of Tyler Perry. In any case, I think that the "scarcity idea" is a consequence of the narrow definition of Black film that the American Entertainment Complex uses to ghettoize Black cinema and keep it isolated to the domestic U.S. Black audience.

  • Miles Ellison | July 27, 2014 5:43 PMReply

    It comes down to this. There is more of an emphasis on being famous than on actually learning the craft of making movies. Audiences support films that they think everybody else is watching. Anything made by or starring somebody who's obscure, even if its good, won't be supported.

  • Andre Seewood | July 27, 2014 7:06 PM

    @Miles Ellison, I really feel strongly about what you have said: "Audiences support films that they think everybody else is watching." I think that this statement reflects the notion of conformism that aids in the corruption and denigration of new, up and coming talent. Because no one wants to be ostracized for their individuality, that which distinguishes filmmakers from each other, that is their individual style, is being intentionally discouraged from within (by the filmmakers themselves too appear commercial) and without (by those viewers who look at independent films through a Devil's Eye and compare them unfavorably to Studio product past and present). In effect, we are helping to discourage new and up and coming talent with our own desire to conform.

  • bill | July 27, 2014 12:20 PMReply

    Are you sure the "critics" you are describing understand any independent films? It sounds like you might be giving too much benefit of the doubt as they clearly only want to see explosions and car chases.

  • Daryl | July 18, 2014 6:24 PMReply

    Andre Seawood you missing my point I'm not saying they won't understand they just want bother to check it out, that's not elitism, that's the reality if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this conversation or black film would be in better shape than it is. Andre Seawood you missed my point again when you say it should be pushed on mutiple fronts, I agree with that I just believe we need a different stratergy than the ones we been using that's why I said your review on the movie Collateral would reach more people and have them looking at films different than this article,That article added another perception for me to that movie that I didn't have before, that I went back and watch it, it was like watching a new film, that's the articles we need. It's not that this article is not on point, in my opinion you could reach more people through reviews on movies and highlighting great movies they might not know about. Let's be real most black filmmakers that get a decent budget on their film just want to get paid like everybody else and could give a damn about telling different black stories or telling their own story , they just want to make what sells, if that's what they want to do, that's on them, that's why I speak to indie filmmakers with no budgets or limited budgets because they refuse to conform to white hollywood bs, they are the ones who are going to change things not these mainstream black filmmakers, actors,actresses, and producers who are just hustling black people like they care when in reality they make sure business go on as usual, you know they can't upset their white studio exec masters.

  • Daryl | July 17, 2014 6:09 PMReply

    Everette good post you hit the problem on the head, we need to stop sugarcaoting things and be real about it, it's masses of black people that have been brainwashed through white supremacy attack on the black mind through films, tv, books, the education system. Thye have been taught to love being last and not take their own culture serious. You know how many times I have heard black people make an excuse about a business, politics, and education saying you know there are black like that is who we are people that suppose to do f up stuff and just sit around and talk and not get things done. That's why I say to filmakers don't worry about the black audience accepting different films, we need those films to exist eventually they will build a sub-culture that can thrive. The focus should be on making films and the film websites and the critics should focus on letting the public know about these films. The focus should be on the next generation because if you have a genration of black kids seeing different black films and not buying into sterotypes of holllywood that's when you are going to see the change, the reality is theolder most people get the more they are stuck in their ways so you never going to get them to like or even check out different films because this is what they have been taught and grew up with, so you are fighting a losing fight, let them be who they are and concentrate on being who you are. Andre Seawood you wrote a good article on the movie collateral, I would rather see articles like that breaking down great films or telling people about great films that didn't get any notice than trying to convince people that don't give a damn about the art of films and there images of why they should care. My opinion you would reach more people with articles like the one you did on collateral than this article no matter how many good point you make because they are not going to care enough to check the article out. Most of the people that are commenting on this article already know what you are talking about. The ones you are trying to reach you can get through them through articles about movies. Example most people learned a little something about how Wall St works through the movies Wall St and Wolf of Wall St not through no news reports, books, or articles. When A Different World was on t.v. black colleger enrollment went up, you had black youth wearing black college gear taking pride in black colleges. I just think articles like this is just for a small circle of people who already know because that's who it ever really reaches most of the time, that just the reality.

  • Andre Seewood | July 17, 2014 6:31 PM

    @Darryl, Unfortunately, we have to agree to disagree on the point that as you say,"... articles like this is just for a small circle of people who already know because that's who it ever really reaches most of the time, that just the reality." I don't believe that and I feel that it is only an expression of "elitism" that assumes that most other Blacks won't understand something. By contrast, I believe that what ever we do to change things has to happen on multiple fronts. Articles, films, criticism, festivals, on-line distribution, everything has to be pushed at once. Only a multi-faceted approach will work. In closing, this article was not written with the intention of trying to convince,"... people that don't give a damn about the art of films and there images of why they should care". It was written as a means of giving support to Black independent filmmakers to not be taken in by the conformist tendencies of others who negatively criticize their films.

  • Everette | July 16, 2014 8:09 PMReply


    Your description of your acquaintance's reaction to the dissolve made me chuckle. It reminded me of a friend of mine who told me that she did not like Spike Lee's films because they did not feel like films. Then, there was a woman whom I dated went and talked about me me behind my back. I showed her, DAUGHTERS of the DUST, and she fell asleep. She told her family that I had a bunch of boring movies.

    What is happen with blacks is that they have internalized the hatred that the United States have for black culture at home. (This same hatred is not witnessed abroad when black music and other aspects of the its culture is being used to promote the American Empire. )

    America does not take any pride in Blues, Jazz, Funk, Soul, Rap, our art, Film and writing. Thus, if it is not anointed by the popular culture, then, blacks do not want anything to do with it. Though, at home many of them enjoy it.

    We have to do something to change this attitude. Instead of the neighborhoods being plastered with liquor and other ads why not show and honor our artists and scientists. We have to build the pride and honor of our own in that way the youths and those disinclined to learn will know that we respect our creators. Why not post Miles, Satchmo, Julie Dash, Oscar Micheaux, Langston, Fanon, Baldwin, and others to enhance the cultural profile. As it is now, we rise and fall and fade away. When that happens, it gives the appearance of no cultural importance.

    There is a reason that other cultures posts photos of their honored members in their place of businesses.

    The black community reaction would or might be different if it were aware of giants among us. If we build our own and stop waiting for the approval from the dominant culture, we would then, be in a better position to appreciate our own.

  • Andre Seewood | July 16, 2014 10:24 PM

    @Everette, I'd just like to put a finer point on a couple of the things you mentioned above... One point is that I believe our problems are within; that is to say we do have an internalized hatred of ourselves (placed in our hearts and minds when we are Young by our own kind and that we fight against for most of our lives). It is a hatred expressed whenever we think of ourselves as a group, YET each individual believes themselves to be above this despised group. Therefore, it's very easy to say that most Blacks don't want anything to do with certain art, music, film and literature by Blacks- and yet also say as you did that," Though, at home many of them enjoy it." This is a peculiar socio-psychological condition which can be traced back to DuBois doubled souls of Black folk- and that I explored in article called Spooks in a Mirror a couple of years ago. For example, many of us as Black individuals enjoy some of the highest forms of artistic expression (Black, White or other) and even form elite groups with other Blacks to celebrate our pleasures; but when we think of ourselves as a group we make a derrogatory assumption about all those other Blacks who either aren't interested or cannot comprehend what the elite group can comprehend and enjoy. It is a ruse and a very dangerous trick that we are playing with ourselves here, bcecause as film is a mass medium you find that you are always talking yourself into "dumbing" things down to appeal to this mass of Black against whom you hold a derrogatory opinion. And if you are not talking yourself into dumbing things down, then others around are talking you into doing it because the hold the same derrogatory opinions of Black people as a monolithic group. Secondly, I don't think that America hates Black culture because they sure enjoy exploiting it to their benefit- I think that America just doesn't want us to profit from it as much as they do. Black filmmakers are treated as the second class citizens of the White controlled global film industry- but the sooner we get rid of this notion of Black elitism the sooner we will be on our way to building our own and not waiting for approval from the dominant culture.

  • Daryl | July 16, 2014 6:14 PMReply

    This what I been saying on this site for the longest black filmmakers and the black audience need to step their game up. It starts with the filmmakers, writers, actors, actresses and producers. We have to be willing to invest and tell different stories. It's time to put up or shut up. How many more years are we going to keep having this same conversation when we got all the tools we need now, technology is a game changer. You can go directly to your audience now, the tools available to filmmakers have made making movies cheaper. The real issue is too many of us have been bamboozled and manipulated to lust after hollywood acceptance and success. I challenge everyone that has made a comment to spend at least a $100 before the year is over on black films that don't play to stereotypes or if you are a filmmaker make a movie that don't play into hollywood sterotypes. Example of sucess if we had at least 50 black films that were diverse that were made for a 1 million dollars and on average made 5 million at the box office or vod that's a success. You shouldn't give a f about what the audience like if you are a real filmmakers it's about telling a story that you want to tell. My advice get with people that love the art of films and are just as passionate as you on the story you want to tell and make your movie. You can't change things with just articles, it has to be done on a wider level by us. I don't want to hear no more real talk, I want to hear lets's get things done talk. It's time to put up or shut up, it's that simple, too many of think it's so hard because we been brainwashed to think like that through white supremacy,I don't buy into that bull because I know we got the ability and the resources to change things, it's just a matter of saying enough is enough. Stop buying into the hype about black films, it's enough people that want to see different stories from black films, that you can be a success, you may not make transformers type money but you can have a career, I thought that's what it suppose to be about if you are a filmmaker.

  • artbizzy | July 15, 2014 6:21 PMReply

    Going off the beaten path in any way is a threat to our security as black people. It challenges our conscious or unconscious desire to further assimilate and blend into this pathological culture. The criticism or dismissal of a black film makers auteur driven work is equivalent to someone saying, "You will lose, my brother. You will be broke, my sister. Therefore you will not survive." That's how deep this syndrome can go. Sometimes I choose to look at jealousy as love disguised as fear. It's ignorance of who we truly are. As a result, we have become a culture of formulas. For example, many of us buy into the convention that something needs to “happen” by a certain page in a screenplay or the script reader will put it down. Or, one must have a clear beginning, middle and end. Or a movie should be entertaining or no one will watch it so you might as well not bother making that film at all or if you have already then you should make changes in order to make the film saleable and the audience more comfortable. Many of us forget that creativity is wild, mysterious and unstructured or bears its own internal structure separate from corporate interests or the desire to entertain. This devil’s eye syndrome reflects a deterioration of the arts and an increasingly cynical and myopic view of how artistic efforts can function in a bland cookie cutter, corporate culture. Film or any art form that makes us slow down and think and reflect is a threat to consumerism. It makes us buy less “things” because we value our inner selves more. So we have to teach our children and ourselves differently in terms of what it means to have the courage to follow our own Muse. Sometimes the greatest act is creating something that no one or hardly anyone might ever see because it makes the person who had that courage in the first place a more healthier, wiser human being and a much more powerful artist for those who may encounter their work in the future.

  • Ol' Skool | July 16, 2014 3:03 PM

    Dayyyymn! Hey S&A, who is this woman and where has she been hiding? I meanm I thought Artbizzy and Andre brought the good pain (and they still do) but DAAYYYYYMMMNN, Ms. Everette tore it up.

    Listen, when she opened up with the do's and don'ts of challenging the traditional storytelling form... and Hollywood, Christina Aguilera's "Genie In A Bottle" jump in my head:

    "You're licking your lips and blowing kisses my way but that don't mean I'm gonna give it away, baby, baby, baby. If you wanna be with me, baby, there's a price to pay. I'm a genie in a bottle... you gotta rub me the right way"

    Come on now, that's exactly what Ms. Everette was saying... if you wanna play in this film business game, baby, there's a price to pay. Finger-pointin', rationalizing, intellectualizing, fakin' & frontin', blaming and crying ain't gonna get cut it.

    And speaking of a price to pay, sometimes that price brings pain. So as I was reading her eloquent comment I thought of my father. I remember his favorite words he'd say while giving my brothers and I a whoopin' "This is gonna hurt me more than it hurts you". See, back then, I had no idea what he was talking about because all I knew was my a$$ was on fire... and his wasn't. Anyway, now I know, he didn't enjoy giving us spankings but he knew that sometimes, the message lingers longer when its accompanied by a little pain. Looking back, I feel his passion and pain, as I do Everette's today. Her message was a passionate plea for black filmmakers to come to grips with reality... "if you wanna be with me, there's a serious price to pay"

    But you know what, I wonder how Everette's position on the plight and forward journey of black independent filmmakers contrasts with Andre Seewood's point of view? OH BOY, now that would be worth the price of admission. Yes sir, 2 wordsmiths, one wearing a dashiki with a raised clinched fist, the other wearing business attire with a tree branch (whoopin' stick) in her hand, each with a lot to say on this thang called black cinema, would be a beautiful thing to see.

  • EVERETTE | July 16, 2014 11:27 AM


    Black people have been conditioned to accept certain types of film. If one's film does not meet that criteria, if one's film does not hit those beats, does not entertain and if something does not happen by a certain page, then, there is going to be a problem. We are accustomed to stories being told in a certain way. If one is going to challenge the traditional storytelling form, then, one had better come with something good and not only come with something good, but come with something hard. One can defy the system, but one must come with qualitative work to do that. This is not to say that Hollywood does, but they set the standards. If we are going to develop an alternative system of storytelling that will take much work. Every system has its code. There is a corporate dress code in America. There are elements of story that Hollywood seeks when works are presented to them. Now, Hollywood's idea of storytelling is not the only way to tell a story, however, that is the only one to which they will apply their resources. They support what works. Why would they take a chance on some unknown with what they consider to be trash?

    Black filmmakers often talk about making films that support "their" people. They often write reactionary material that suggests that the U.S. is a terrible place. Which white person or studio is going to support that? Even a liberal will not stick out his neck for that. Your work has to support the empire or it is not go. That is the long and the short of . If one is going to write dense impenetrable material that only intellectuals can discuss, then, Hollywood will not support that. Hollywood caters to the ignorant. The mass market. The mass market does not wish to think. They do not want anything placed in their heads, they want to get into beds.

    What we need is a string of successful, very successful black films. We need this to set us up as a community of talented artists. Given the pathological nature of the business, even that will not help us probably.

    Another problem that we have is black people do not support black artists. Successful black artists have always been largely supported by whites at home and abroad. Even today. Just ask the rappers.

    What black filmmakers have to do is what Jonathan Demme does. He makes what Hollywood wants to get work and then, he takes his money and makes what he wants to make.

  • Andre Seewood | July 15, 2014 7:11 PM

    All I can say ArtBizzy is: Man, you ain't never lied about that! When you say that we have become a culture of formulas it makes me wonder, as Black people, do we really know ourselves? Our diversity? Our strength and our weaknesses except as reflected back to us through the distorted lens of Whiteness? I mean, are we just "performing" Blackness with no sense of who we really are? And I'd just like to repeat your words: " Sometimes the greatest act is creating something that no one or hardly anyone might ever see because it makes the person who had that courage in the first place a more healthier, wiser human being and a much more powerful artist for those who may encounter their work in the future." You ain't never lied about that!

  • william lee | July 15, 2014 5:45 PMReply

    As a black indie filmmaker, and After 40 years in this biz, I have found that most black audiences do not support or understand my work. It seems the ranting and raving about stereotypical images is a hypocritical chant, when a film like SOUL PLANE is on auto play on mainstream black media outlets like BET. I do action adventure films, and though they always contain diverse casts, the black audience is simply non existent or they postulate I am not "black enough" in my craft or my ambition. So let me get this straight, a film with black people in pivotal roles is not worth the support of the black audience because it isn't "black" (i.e., ghetto) enough? Is this really where we're at?

  • Andre Seewood | July 15, 2014 7:40 PM

    Mr. Lee your post has solidified in me the conviction that every Black filmmaker should be zealously attempting to destroy every stereotype and racialized trope that mis-defines us as Black people. But to do so would first require the elimination of the fear of not making a profit without appealing to the lowest common stereotype of Black people as viewers. This doesn't mean that the subsequent films need to be preachy, self-righteous or bland- but instead our creativity would be expressed in how well we can construct films that would appear to seduce the audience into believing they are seeing a stereotype or familiar racialized trope and then literally pulling the rug out from Under them. I mean the films that we really want to make as Black filmmakers- we often talk ourselves out of making because of the illusions you spoke of, not "black" enough, etc. And if we can't talk ourselves out of making these great films, we let others talk us out of making these different, challenging and groundbreaking films. Nobody wants to lose money- but I remind everyone as often a chance as I can get: Not all White films are made to make money- some are made for cultural prestige and to maintain the illusion of White supremacy in the art form of cinema. Having said all of this, I'd just like to close by saying, that if you've been in the business for 40 years and have been making these kinds of challenging films, then there needs to be a major retrospective of your work- and I'd love to be there to see them.

  • Ol' Skool | July 15, 2014 6:07 PM

    "So let me get this straight, a film with black people in pivotal roles is not worth the support of the black audience because it isn't "black" (i.e., ghetto) enough? Is this really where we're at?"

    Mr. Lee, if you're question is referring to Mr. Seewood's post, I do not think you've captured the essence of such. I believe his post was speaking to all hypocrites who judge/criticize independent black films different than they would "white" films. That said, is it possible that you may have been guilty, sometime in your life, of viewing a few black film with, as Andre terms it "The Devil's Eye"?

    In short, The Devil's Eye Syndrome is not -- solely -- reserved for white folks.

  • Dave D. | July 15, 2014 5:56 PM

    40 years wow! do you have links to some of your work?

  • RANDOM COMMENTARY | July 15, 2014 4:39 PMReply

    I see this article as a further in-depth analysis to my response.

    June 15 2014, Looking for Something to Watch on Father's Day? Try 'Black Nation'

    Obviously you're from the D or the suburbs. I had to double check to see if we crossed paths without knowing. I don't know if you're solo or you have your own film group. If you joined 48 Hours film groups some interesting film projects can come about. Basically I'm trying to change the black independent culture of essentially relationship drama. Right now I think the group is moving towards a higher degree of professionalism. Just throwing some information out there.

  • @milesmaker | July 15, 2014 3:42 PMReply

    I value the time and attention and considerate care given to writing this post.

  • Kelly | July 15, 2014 2:02 PMReply

    Wow. You're a class act... Calling someone a "scroll troll" just because they disagree with you. By the way, I thoroughly read this article more than once and each time I came to the same conclusion. In the end, we don't agree. As a matter of fact, I think "black spectators" have been way more forgiving when it comes to black indie films versus studio films. And coming up with a fake syndrome is utterly ridiculous!

    I've read many of your postings and sometimes I wonder... Are you really about helping advance black filmmakers in today's society or just to keep them locked in yesteryear?

  • Andre Seewood | July 15, 2014 2:13 PM

    And I'm still waiting on you to define and clarify a "Quentin Tarantino dissolve"- a glaring mistake that reveals that you didn't read the article thoroughly. If you don't like my articles you certainly don't have to read them- that would be the more intelligent thing to do rather than making up things, misinterpretating concepts and taking citations out of context. You're not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with yourself as I noted in the contradictions in your original commentary. If as you say the cream rises to the top with regards to Black talent in this White controlled industry, then how do you justify your following statement that,"So much is based on money and who you know just like any other industry..."? If you can't or won't clarify your own shifting positions and mistakes in your original commentary, then what was your point other than "scroll trolling" this article with a Devil's Eye- I might add?

  • Kelly | July 15, 2014 12:28 AMReply

    So let me get this right...I've "insulted" you with my response yet YOU wrote this regarding black film goers: "The Devil’s Eye Syndrome is the deliberate critical rejection of Black independent film by Black spectators which manifests itself as a severe and bitter criticism of a Black independent film to the degree that no other commercial White studio film would be able to withstand nor would these Black spectators dare apply such “high standards” to a White film." Well let me just clarify this so you can understand...YOU HAVE INSULTED ALL "black spectators" of film. Did you understand that?

  • CareyCarey | July 15, 2014 4:22 PM

    Andre, you ARE good. I don't know if you knew I'd understand or could relate to that verse, or if you really believe it yourself, however, back-at-you... there's a few words my lady always drops on me when I am "going through". They are: When the winding road ahead is filled with evil, doubt and pain "Call those things that are not (are not in existence yet) as though they already are"

    Peace, Mr. Seewood

  • Andre Seewood | July 15, 2014 1:34 PM

    What I really want to say is," Yea, though I walk through the valley..." but I'll just say to you CareyCarey I thank you sincerely.

  • CareyCarey | July 15, 2014 1:21 PM

    Mr. Andre, having read all your posts, I admire your intestinal fortitude.

    Most of your posts, if not all, are greeted with an intense push-back from those who are constitutional incapable of seeing, hearing or telling the truth. However, in spite of that maddening and blinder wearing crowd you keep on pushing forward.

    Even those who "say" they appreciate and understand were you're coming from, many of them follow their pants on your back with the "disclaimer", the conjunction "BUT", which usually contrasts with their previous statement. Seldom, if ever, over my many years of reading your articles, have I witnessed a person (particularly your detractors) stop by and say the 4 phrases humans have the hardest time admitting. Those are:

    1. I was wrong
    2. I didn't/don't know
    3. I am truly sorry
    4. I love you

    Now I don't what it is but for some strange reason most humans can't seem to go ^there^.

    So my man, you definitely have a formidable foe and a formidable task in front of you. However, as I said, YOU are the man... the right man for this job. So keep on keeping on... many are in your corner. MY hat is tipped in your direction.

  • Andre Seewood | July 15, 2014 12:20 PM

    @Kelly, taking quotes out of context to prove your misguided interpretation of this article is disingenuous at best and further proves my point that you didn't read this article carefully and didn't comprehend what was being expressed. I noticed that you left out your ridiculous mistake about some kind of a "Quentin Tarantino dissolve" and the other erronenous conclusions you were adding to this article to make your own blind, deaf and dumb point about "cream rising to the top". This point about "cream rising to the top" is a point that you contradicted when you said later that," Finally, there are other components and factors, such as marketing and "insider" push, missing from your argument. I sometimes sense indie filmmakers think the indie film word is "magical" and it's not. So much is based on money and who you know just like any other industry..." If so much is based on money, insider push and who you know, then I guess the cream doesn't really rise to the top- BUT instead it is placed there. Please don't get offended further (not that I give a damn), but you're what I call a "Scroll Troll". You scrolled through this article so quickly that you misinterpretated it so that you could quickly express your contradictory and ridiculous opinion. Great job Kelly, Kudos to you!

  • bb | July 15, 2014 12:14 PM

    Kelly, Andre has not insulted all "black spectators" of film. I'm glad this article was written because I see this in my everyday life as an actor and cinephile. There are things that Black filmmakers just can't get away with that their white counterparts can. Whether you want to see it or not Kelly, this is a very real thing, and calling it "sour grapes" is insulting instead of taking the time to understand the theory Andre speaks of.

  • Kelvin | July 15, 2014 12:13 AMReply

    To Sergio

    I would see a film like Middle of Nowhere and Transformers 4. Movies has to make me say that's a great piece of art as well as entertain. If it doesn't then what's the point.

  • Kelly | July 14, 2014 10:44 PMReply

    *Sigh* I really wanted to like this article but, frankly, it just comes across as sour grapes. So folks didn't get your use of a Quentin Tarantino "dissolve" in your short film, therefore, you've concluded that most of us are inept at seeing and understanding superior film quality and skills? Wrong. Not buying that. If that were the case, talented indie filmmakers like Julie Dash--who's mentioned in your piece--would not have been discovered. Are black indie filmmakers skewered more than their white counterparts? Most definitely but that unwritten rule is something that applies to ALL blacks. We live in a society where black folks have to be ten times better at everything practically. However, when all is said and done, it doesn't have to deter you from being successful at what you do. And frankly Andre, I've been a patron of black indie films for more than 20 years and in my opinion...cream does rise to the top. A talented black indie filmmaker may not get millions of folks viewing his work but he may get the "right eyes" viewing it, leading to him or her being able to secure much bigger film/commercial work (Ava Duvernay is a good example).

    As far as talent, it's your job as a director to find the very best. Not mediocre or just "okay" talent. The BEST. Do black folks have a tendency to pick at the skills of unknown actresses and actors? YES and that's because they've been fed bad or mediocre levels for so long. Even if I use your "devil's eye" theory which is basically saying we've been conditioned by the white mainstream media, it would still mean we're exposed to a higher level of acting and we wholeheartedly EXPECT anyone attempting to enter the fray as a filmmaker or actor/actress to adapt to those standards accordingly. Filmmaker Joe Doughrity knew Emayatzy Corinealdi was a great actress when he put her in AKIRA'S HIP HOP SHOP. The same can be said for filmmaker Pete Chatmon when he used Dorian Missick and Zoe Saldana in PREMIUM.

    Finally, there are other components and factors, such as marketing and "insider" push, missing from your argument. I sometimes sense indie filmmakers think the indie film word is "magical" and it's not. So much is based on money and who you know just like any other industry. Also, in my opinion, the black audience is still in need of being cultivated when it comes to art house/indie films. One aspect I find problematic is how so many black filmmaker chose to enter the field with a dramatic film. ALL dramatic features have difficulty in the industry, mainstream or indie. It's always been this way. You put yourself behind the eight ball if you go this route.

    In the end, as I stated...talent will rise to the top. Filmmaker Justin Simien's DEAR WHITE PEOPLE concept trailer/kickstarter campaign is an excellent example of that! Nobody was coerced into liking that trailer. It came naturally and easily with NO PRODDING and because it was great, people referred it to others with excitement.

    By the way, I don't know anyone who picks TRANSFORMERS for its artistic merits. Big tentpole films are usually seen at the theater with your family for the experience. While art house and/or indie flicks are saved as your date night flicks using VOD or Netflix.

  • Andre Seewood | July 14, 2014 11:06 PM

    It would appear that you didn't like the article because of your own misunderstandings. How is there any such thing as a "Quentin Tarantino dissolve"? And your misreading of my conclusions are so far off the mark as to be nothing but insulting. No where did I conclude that,"most of us are inept at seeing and understanding superior film quality and skills? " Ultimately, you are reading your own biases into this article and making accusations and interpretations that are not the intention or the spirit within which this article was written. It was a skillfully deceptive straw man argument- but your misguided interpretations of this article are unteneable.

  • JTC | July 14, 2014 9:52 PMReply

    I understand and appreciate the sentiment behind your writing. I must start by saying that I am, as an artist, very interested in giving rise to my own voice as a filmmaker, a voice which respects the wisdom of the great filmmakers before me and yet seeks to express a very personal and intimate vision of the world, which includes developing a personal approach to narrative structure, cinematic language, and orienting cultural perspective.

    In regards to narrative structure, I feel you. But I have to say that I feel that comes with more African American filmmakers seeking to explore the boundaries of conventional narrative, something which I have yet to experience at the independent level, if even with black Hollywood films.

    In regards to budget, current technology is a lovely thing. If you have a cinematographer that can paint with light DSLRs can offer amazing imagery.

    Acting, however, acting is different. I grew up around the theater as young person (mom was an actress) and saw a lot of plays. Acting is a serious thing. I learned that a quality actor could perform against a black wall and make you see the whole scene on the stage in your mind's eye. Acting is unforgiving. Decent acting is really bad acting. Acting reminds me of music in that way. A close note still sounds like a false note.

    I have been in filmmaking communities in Ohio, Bay Area, Los Angeles, Houston, and New Orleans and in independent film, regardless of race, acting is the make or break factor to your story feeling real. The problem in independent film is that, as I have seen more often than not, a person decides to call themselves a director (without studying cinematic language or narrative structure) and another an actor because people see a film and think "it can't be that hard." The director writes a script gets enough money to bring a team together. The director sees someone who looks like the part and is interested in acting, but has little to no training yet hires them anyway.) But acting, like writing, and directing, (or every other art form) is a craft that takes years to learn. So the director makes his film from her first script and is so in enchanted with the idea of people doing what you tell them to do and surge of creative power and loses objectivity. The script needs work. The actors are eager but don't have training in how to modulate their emotions. The director's friends and family are amazing because (you actually made a film) Then someone who is not connected to the project has something critical to say and all hell breaks loose. The critical person has now become the source of evil in the world.

    This is not to say that there aren't haters out there, but on the real talk level, I have seen the above sequence happen dozens of time over the past 13-14 years. Some people, also regardless of race, enjoy the props of accolades of creativity but not the painstaking work to creating within themselves.

  • Andre Seewood | July 14, 2014 11:40 PM

    I really appreciate your detailed and nuanced commentary. You gave an insightful metaphor on acting being like music in that,"A close note still sounds like a false note." Yet, I think the point that I was trying to emphasize is that acting -even what passes for great acting- rests on conventions that are built up over time by either the American Entertainment Industry or via the professionalism of guilds within theater. But there are other acting styles, techniques and approaches that can be used not to give a sense of a story "feeling real" as you say, but instead to question how things are conventionally represented- to point towards the ideological and social forces that produce the circumstances that we are familar with, but without allowing emotions to cloud our judgment. Of course, I am speaking of certain Brechtian acting techniques and styles as can be seen at work in the films of German director Rainer Werner Fassbinder. (Just as one example out of many) My point is that many Black Independent filmmakers don't get the chance to experiment with different acting styles beyond what is conventionally accepted and learned from Studio films and television because their films are already looked at through the Devil's Eye because of the use of unknown actors in lead roles. There is a certain conformism at work with regards to the assessment of Black Independent directors films that is not at work with regards to White films (independent or studio). The need to make a story "feel real" is already boxing one into accepting certain acting conventions which in turn lead to certain visual and editorial conventions and can result into a well made, but uninspiring film. Here, I return to your metaphor about acting as music- there are many genres of music, just as there are many genres of acting styles beyond just the conventional. All experimentation should not immediately be considered bad acting because it doesn't "feel real". That is, hopefully if the director as giving some real thought to the approach.

  • Andrei Jefferson | July 14, 2014 8:05 PMReply

    Mr. Seewood,

    I always find your essays very interesting. And while I understand the point you are making with this essay, I find aspects of it problematic. Years ago when I was teaching film in DC, a showed my graduate class a sequence from one of my films. Throughout the film, I periodically utilized flash frames as an editing aesthetic. After the screening, one of the students asked me if this was a mistake. It never struck me then, nor does it now, that this question was motivated by what you refer to as the “Devil’s Eye.” More accurately, it was a comment based on the fact that the majority of people who go the movies, rent or buy DVDs mostly only view commercial cinema and most commercial cinema adhere to a very specific set of aesthetic conventions. Simple put, the student had never seen a film that incorporated the flash frames created by the film camera.

    As the creator, it’s understandable for us to want our creative choices, if not understood, than at least appreciated in some way, but the audience doesn’t have this responsibility. They don’t have to like what we do. And we have to find a way to come to terms with that. As some one else suggested, all filmmakers do not make films for the same reasons. And in a country that regards film first and foremost as a product for commerce, filmmakers have to be realistic when it comes to how much broad appeal a film will be able to generate with an unconventional narrative and unconventional aesthetics.

    I watch all kinds of films. I love international art cinema and I can also enjoy the entertainment value of a big budget Hollywood spectacle. I think acceptance and appreciation ultimately comes down to exposure, but there will still be individual tastes and levels of intellect.

    I think your argument also would have been stronger if you could have provided another example other than one leveled at your own filmmaking endeavors. I’m also curious to know what your response was to the brother that made the comment about the dissolve. Perhaps he didn’t understand it. Perhaps there was something about the use of the dissolve, the timing, the framing of the two shots, that “got in the way” of his understanding. Or perhaps he took a sip from his soda and missed a second or two. Anything could have happened to interfere with his understanding. I also think you make an incredible assumption by suggesting this same person will go and see a “Hollywood” movie and basically swallow absolutely everything about said movie without question. Once again, the issue of subjectivity comes into question.

    In the end, I completely agree with you: all filmmakers, and maybe to a greater degree, black filmmakers have to decide what type of filmmaker, storyteller they want to be. And if you are truly driven with a passion and a desire to make films, than you will continue to do so, be your own worst critic, learn as much about the craft as possible, and make the films you want to make regardless of whether or not someone understands your dissolves or flash frames.

  • Andre Seewood | July 14, 2014 8:58 PM

    Mr. Jefferson, I can certainly appreciate your incredulity as it concerns the criticism of the narrative structure of one of my own films, but I assure you that the criticism centered on my use of the slow dissolve as a time compression device. I discuss other attempts at Devil's Eye criticism towards Black Independent filmmakers in chapter length detail in my book Slave Cinema (Part Three: Five Errors that Constrict African-American Cinematic Style pgs. 91-142). Although, I don't call the examples in the book, Devil's Eye criticism- it was clear to me as I wrote this article that the five errors I was describing in Slave Cinema come from the same negative critical hypocrisy that attempts to force Black filmmakers to conform to conventional standards and practices of cinematic representation that stands in direct contradistinction to the freedom and contestation of conventions that characterizes Independent cinema. You say I make "an incredible assumption by suggesting this same person will go and see a Hollywood movie and basically swallow absolutely everything about said movie without question," but I don't think that assumption is too incredible or out of bounds. Particularly if we compare the dismal reviews of a film like Transformers 4 to the banal but satisfied comments from regular moviegoers. This is not simply a question of "Entertainment" but instead it is a question of conformity- accepting stereotypes, stigmatized racial tropes and token casting in exchange for mindless CGI visual tricks. What's passing for Entertainment these days is really mind numbing distraction from the inequities of reality. And while there was a time when ballsy filmmakers would "hide the ideas, but so that people will find them" (Robert Bresson) even in the most simplistic forms of Entertainment (see: John Ford's Westerns, etc) today it is the need to conform that supresses the lack of diversity in Black films. So although we agree on certain points, I stand by the example given here with regards to my own film and refer you or others to the Part three of Slave Cinema which goes into greater detail about this need to make Black filmmakers conform to standards that White filmmakers are not expected to even consider for the sake of establishing their own cinematic style.

  • VC | July 14, 2014 7:34 PMReply

    Thanks for this!

  • WorkingClass | July 14, 2014 6:46 PMReply

    Most people view films as a form of entertainment...many people who become filmmakers view film as an art...most people judge a film based on its ability to entertain them...artists value films based on the creative innovation and unique voice of the filmmaker...the Devil's Eye Syndrome is the anger that most people have towards artists who value innovation and aesthetics over pure entertainment an artistic filmmaker you do not see "film" as
    95% of the population sees it...they have no idea who Bazin and Eisenstein are and don't care...they are watching something and it needs to move them emotionally to laughter, fright or something immediately...they don't want to think about it or try to figure it out (unless it's
    a murder mystery) can either make things that are popular and genre and give it a smart artistic edge or just go all out artistic and understand the audience for this is tiny...resentment of the Devil's Eye is not the answer...the Devil's Eye is just clarifying things for you

  • Andre Seewood | July 14, 2014 7:17 PM

    Your point while finely articulated, fails to address one of the major points of the article and that is that those people whom you say, "view films as a form of Entertainment," accept and indeed expect creative innovation and "a smart artistic edge" from White studio and independent films (and even if they don't get it they still accept the worst White films over an innovative Black film)- but express anger and disbelief when Black filmmakers attempt to do the same things in Black films. Therefore, I don't believe that the Devil's Eye is clarifying things for the Black independent filmmaker- but rather it is a means of discouragement that keeps Black films and filmmakers in lower esteem than White films and filmmakers. The Devil's Eye is obscuring things rather than clarifying things as you say.

  • CareyCarey | July 14, 2014 4:27 PMReply

    The Devils Eye Syndrome... I must admit... I've harbored such in my soul.

    So this excellent piece spoke directly to me. In fact, it was so tight I had to read it twice... and boy oh boy, you laid me (and I can assume many others) smooth the fk out. So, in my defense it behooves me to say, I simply didn't know. I didn't know the harm I was causing our fellow and up n coming filmakers, by using my Devils Eye while critiquing black independent films. So thank you for bringing our missteps to our attention.

    That said, I do have a slight disagreement. Well, you used Meryl Streep in a negative connotation. You said "Acting is usually the [Devil's eye] easiest target of attack against the Black Independent Filmmaker's work"

    And then you justified and qualified your opinion by downplaying Meryl Streep's acting prowess. Okay, speaking for myself, acting is not the first target my Devil's Eye focuses on. Many, many things take me "there". Generally speaking, my evil eye is raised at the first sign of "trouble". That aside, I believe I am a good judge of an actor's ability to convince "me" they are not acting. More importantly, I am the judge of an actor's ability to emotionally move me without me referring back to their past performance(s). Therefore, in my opinion, one who believes Meryl Streep is today's best living actress, a lessor actor may have been a better choice to illustrate/bolster your point.

    That small issue aside, this post may not be loved by many (and we know why) but again, you've done the damn thang. This was (of course) well-written, very insightful and very much needed for all to hear.

  • spirit equality | July 14, 2014 3:02 PMReply

    The "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" line is from Malcolm X, not an "old comedian".

    And most black people I know never even go to see black independent films, so be glad your friends at least pay money for them.

    ps: I have to admit, I've never met anyone who would see a black indie like "Middle of Nowhere" AND "Transformers 4". Seems like two sets of people go to these types of films and I rarely observe any overlap.

  • sergio | July 14, 2014 7:25 PM

    "ps: I have to admit, I've never met anyone who would see a black indie like "Middle of Nowhere" AND "Transformers 4".

    Obviously you haven't met me or most of my regular filmgoing friends. You need to hang out with a better group of people

    And yes you;re right Malcolm X did say that line

Follow Shadow and Act

Email Updates

Most "Liked"

  • 'Take Me To The River' Celebrates Memphis' ...
  • Byron Hurt Seeks Hazing Victims, Perpetrators, ...
  • Carra Patterson and Paul Giamatti will ...
  • Trailer for 'Contamination' - Film Tackles ...
  • VH1 Announces the New Cast of 'Love ...
  • Check Out the First Teaser-Trailer for ...
  • Papa Pope, Crazy Eyes and Egyptian Revolutionaries ...
  • Weekend B.O. Aug. 15-17 (The Dog Days ...
  • "Bang, Bang!" HBO Releases New Trailer ...
  • Energetic First Trailer for Kenya-Set ...