THE
IMPACT OF RACISM ON BLACK FILMMAKING: MISSED ECONOMIC OPPORTUITIES AHEAD
By
Alonzo Crawford
Why are black filmmakers opposed to exploiting
financial opportunities when pioneered by white filmmakers? Recently, this
phenomenon was brought into focus with the release of the movie ‘The Help’,
distributed by Bona Vista (Canadian distribution company), written and directed
by Tate Taylor (first-time-directing) and produced by Christopher Columbus
(producer/director of the “Harry Potter” series). The budget for the film was
$25million. To date the movie has grossed over $166 million domestic, since
released August 10, 2011.
Statistically, The Help has done better in terms
of return on investment at the box office than ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’
(ratio of investment to return), which was budgeted at over $93million and
grossed $173 million domestic (an expected blockbuster film), which was
released during the same time period.
Based on my limited informal survey, the
immediate response is: “white racism discriminates in favor of financing white
filmmakers on black stories over blacks, which is discouraging.” Likewise, for
the same reason, black communities tend to generally refuse to support black
movies at the box office when produced by white filmmakers. Could this
collective response be the result of historical indoctrination of
black-consciousness to the propaganda of racial discrimination? To what extent
is black consciousness profoundly affected by myth and ‘psychological-poison’
of racial prejudice; that it is so internalized to become a form of
self-policing of black thought? Is it possible to create a black filmmakers’
union to produce profitable films by and about blacks, with a change in the
social, political and economic model of black filmmaking?
Cultural dominance of ethnic groups is part and
parcel to capitalism, which works effectively all across global markets. Black
filmmakers are a part of this economic system—for good or bad—with the
same-shared potential opportunity benefit. This statement holds true until,
looked at through the political lens of race. When a model by white filmmaker
is present, any possible economic opportunity seems to be contradicted in black
consciousness; in the belief “they can not tell black stories without
distortion.” If this statement is true, isn’t that compelling reason for black
filmmakers to jump in to tell their own version of reality?
It is a proprietary strategy for Hollywood
businessmen to exploit cultures—whether conscious or unconscious—designed to
maintain economic control over storytelling of all cultures. Whether calculated
or not, it is well organized and practiced extensively throughout European
culture to control the economic power of ethnic groups through control of
motion picture storytelling. Relevancy of conspiracy is not the issue here; the
result is the same: white filmmakers get the financial green light, while black
filmmakers struggle to tell their own stories.
Is there a lesson in this? When closely analyzed,
there are certain immutable facts about the laws of economic capitalism.
Hollywood does not control those laws; nor is it impervious to external
entities capable and willing to compete in the market place. That is, not
unless community-consciousness allows others to monopolize storytelling in
their culture. It is been demonstrated that ‘self-policing’ thought is a
condition of social-norms and morals often associated with psychological duress
and other emotional stresses of fear, confusion, doubt, distrust, jealousy and
paranoia. This is a type stress the black community (black filmmaker included)
is subjected to consistently.
This form of psychological warfare is not unique
to racial struggles. During World War II, the Japanese successfully detained
5,000 American soldiers (trained to escape capture at-all-cost) in internment
camps with only five (5) Japanese soldiers. Not a single American soldier ever
escaped. Brainwashing was so complete soldiers policed their own conduct.
Fellow soldiers out of fear they would suffer, in the event it was successful,
quickly exposed any attempt at escape.
According to Box Office Mojo, 72% of those who
saw The Help give it ‘A’ rating. I have taken my own informal black community
survey to ascertain the attitude toward the movie. The majority of Blacks I
asked, if they saw or intended to see the movie (filmmakers and non-filmmakers)
said, ‘they weren’t interested’. When I asked the reason why, most admitted it
was because it is produced and directed by a white filmmaker.
Psychological-poison: “if white people made it, there must be something wrong
with it” “This is how discrimination works in America.” Consequently, the black
community has become cynical to a fault. Self-policing or monitoring
consciousness is not to support the film for the above reasons. Even Black
media are not free from the psychological poison of self-policing in the black
community. They do not provide equitable reviews or news coverage to black film
productions. Ditto goes for Black churches, which are an extremely valuable approach
to building a strong alternative distribution network and economic base.
Yet, the psychology in black consciousness is
totally reversed when the subject of movies is a white story. The black
audience has no problem supporting movies about white culture. Why is that?
It is estimated that ethnic groups represent as
much as 60% of movie going audiences, an economic industry estimated at over
$10billion annually. Why is this contradiction exclusive to movies by white
filmmakers about black subject matter?
Historically, the black community has not
supported black filmmakers unless, and until, legitimized by mainstream media.
However, there is a ‘catch-22’ in getting mainstream media to cover or review
any film: a film has to have a two-week run in a local theater before major
media will review it. Most black filmmakers do not get distribution, nor can
they afford to “fore-wall” (rent the theater) out-of-pocket, for that length of
time; therefore, do not get reviewed or an audience, failing to make money.
Over time there are only are few black-film exceptions to this rule.
Strangely enough, the psychological-poison in
black consciousness is neutralized by the can spread favorable ‘word-of-mouth’
about a black movie, whether endorsed or not by mainstream media. Is this the
antidote to psychological-poison? I suspect so. As word spread on the ‘The
Help’ it appeared to gain momentum in the black community. Black community
approval grew and continued to grow proportionately, to the spread of
word-of-mouth and garners support of mainstream media endorsements.
Such a memorable example is Melvin Van Peoples’
“Sweet, Sweet Back’s Bad-Ass Song” (1971). Van Peoples was not able to secure
distribution, nor exhibition in a theater. So, he fore-walled a theater in Detroit,
Michigan for a weekend. It was not until Black Panther Party members saw and
decided to support the film that the mainstream media reviewed it, which got
the attention of a Hollywood studio to buy it. The estimated budget was
$100-thousand; Van Peoples sold it to Hollywood for an estimated $3million.
Hollywood launched a nationwide advertising-campaign. As a result, the ratio of
production cost to investment return proved extraordinary. “Sweet, Sweet Back’s
Bad-Ass Song” went on to gross over $10 million. This is referred to as “the
biggest bang for the least bucks” in the business. The immutable law of
capitalism existed then and exists today. Even more so, today it is of no
consequence if it is black, white or another ethnicity; as long as the product
makes money, Hollywood is interested.
Black filmmakers have yet to see the value in
exploiting the economic system to their benefit. Disregard to marketability for
the sake of making movies driven by passion is the approach of many black
filmmakers [I included]. Consequently, large percentages of black films go
without adequate distribution, missing out on financial investment returns and
potential audience support. A large number end up sitting on the shelf. Perhaps
[we] black filmmakers need to change the way of doing business. Is it possible
to make films black audiences want to see and feel just as passionate about the
subject matter? Many good black films have been made over the last thirty-years
(30)—some as good as, if not better than “The Help”—but were not economically
successful.
Today’s distribution deals are driven by
marketability. Story telling and the ‘star-system’ are the fundamental
components of this marketable approach. What the audience is likely to buy
(potential return-on-investment) is far more viable in the business of
filmmaking. Passion is an unsustainable model in the business lexicon of the
motion picture industry. In Hollywood, the language is simple: “if it makes
money, replicate it.” How many versions of “Jason” are there—thirteen? This
economic model is based on the philosophy to study under, and copy, the works
of masters. The objective is to acquire the skills to start your own brand. it
is a tried and proven method in capitalism.
What social-political forces have helped bring
about economic success of “The Help”, to be a “cross-over” movie? The theater
where I saw it was a ethnically mixed white/black audience. It was particular
interesting to watch the whites audience willingly sit through criticisms of
their racial history from the 1950’s, while blacks in the audience laughed and
cheered. Perhaps, the willingness of whites to endure this is because distance
from the past, that may have allowed them to remove themselves from any guilt.
In either case they tolerated the indictment while empathizing with black
sentiments in the story.
What happened to the old racial-intolerant
attitude: “I’m tired of hearing blacks complain about discrimination”? Could
there be a connection between changes in white attitudes and politics in the country,
culminating in the election of Barrack Obama? Could the rise of radical
conservatives among Republicans and the Tea Party be perceived as overt racism
renewed, cause this new generation of whites consciousness to question the
values of the old antebellum South? Has recognition of the ultra-right-wing
extremism in politics birthed a new awareness in Americans? Could it mean the
willingness to openly question traditional racial attitudes, to embrace the
possibilities of cultural-diversity as a source of national strength?
If there
is any truth in this, should not black filmmakers attempt to capitalize on this
cultural/political climate (i.e. Sweet, Sweet Back and the Black-exploitation
films), however short-lived it might be?
Much like it is today, in 1971 Hollywood was on
the verge of bankruptcy when it was forced to address the needs of the black
movie-going audience. For nearly a decade after Melvin Van Peoples, Hollywood
produced movies specifically for the black audience. Neither passion nor the politics
of race had anything to do with that pursuit. It was purely the pursuit of
money. It was an economic boom in Hollywood that brought about the financial
recovery of an industry. In1977, when it was no longer financially necessary,
Hollywood ceased production of movies with leading black characters, stating:
“…they [black films] do not make money outside the continental United States”.
Green-light marketable films based on statistical
data of audience-interest (return of investment) are the driving force in
Hollywood. Black filmmakers can do well to take a similar approach. In this
world of potential Internet distribution, passion and profit can be
synonymously interchangeable. Filmmakers can feel passionate about storytelling
that tells reality from their own point of view while they make money. Black
filmmakers do not have to remain trapped in racial politics of the past.
History has shown, Hollywood will replicate and exploit new financial streams
as long as necessary.
Alonzo Crawford
Associate Professor and Filmmaker
Howard
Department of Radio, Television & Film
Washington, DC
