GOOD BLACK CINEMA VS BAD BLACK CINEMA?
As a black male intellectual I have been disquieted by the
proliferation of culturally retrogressive black cinema and have chosen to
boycott them as an act of solidarity with those who desire to see a better
quality of film. The burning question, "Who decides what stories get made into film", and the burning reality of what ultimately gets made into film are the drivers behind this long running conflict. In truth, there is such a richness of material from which to choose that no excuse can be made for the lack of more substantive films other than apathy and even perhaps ill-intent. After all, nearly anything can be marketed for success but in a country where sex, violence and institutionalized racism are best sellers one must be far more analytic when attempting to determine the difference between good black cinema and bad black cinema...
There are two schools of thought circulating in the mix of
contemporary cinematic consciousness.
The first school says patronize the retrogressive films in hope that
eventually someone will be inspired to do better. The second school says no patronage for media
of every kind that fails to portray black men in positive and non-stereotypical
roles. Clearly I am a student of the
latter school!
The first school of thought is one of blind hope and faith, but
not one of action. It is a school that
has waited languorously, lugubriously on the conscience of a world that has
never and will never see them! It is a
school that waits patiently, earnestly, hungrily for castings of bread crusts
from the o’erflowing, cornicopic table of the big house. It survives as it can and because its
expectation level is maintained always at a point of critical subsistence this
school of thought always appears to be the most realistic in its grasp of the
real and of the possibility of what might become reality.
The second school is no less blind in its quotient of hope
and faith, but it is one of action, and that is what makes it fundamentally
different! It is a school that is
impatient with what the world will offer and serves as an agitant to those who
have accepted the narcotic of providence over preemptive action. Not that it ever unwisely refuses crusts of
bread when sustenance is an issue for the body but it is ultimately what it
does to transform those crusts much in the line of its idealistic insistence in
effect to use those crusts for the production of their own bread. Unrealistic as the means might be, a product,
if only intellected has been manufactured from the merest wisps of imagination
and desire!
In the primordial battle of human survival, desire has
always been a far better broth than despair.
Strange, that the struggle to establish something as superficial as “Image”
would cook down to a soup of such elementary truths. The black man has fought during his entire
existence in America against the corruption of his image. His power to paint and frame it removed, he
has had to define himself within himself whilst defending against the external
slander and perversion of his image by those seeking to justify the evil behind
the denial of his beauty. And what would
this black man accomplish if he were to refashion himself as a handsome and
wise, industrious and essential salt of this precipitous world? T’would be vainglorious if not for the mere
task of balance! Then what would happen
after these scales were balanced, how much would enlightenment weigh? With men
it is never only about image, image is always a difference quantified within a
hierarchy between the un-celebrated and the very Gods themselves. So through the medium of film would the black
man reclaim his image as a man or paint himself as a God? The point having been made for the variable
of human vanity let us say only that there is much reconstruction that is needed
for the image of the black man and for him there can be no greater tool outside
of his own ethical fortitude and deeds than to aptly personify himself within
the iconic cloud of global virtuality and not in the ephemeral streaming of
music videos but within the classic permanence of film!
Digression is often a comforting mirage effective at
introducing the richness of other points of view. But there are some very straightforward, one
might say sobering realities to why we see the types of films we do and why the
images and in particular the representation of black men continues to fall so
far from where many feel it ought to be and that reality is often linked not
only to prejudice but also to money. There
is one magnanimous control variable which looms in the omnipresent horizon of
every film either conceptual or real... Capitalism! We are all witnesses to the fact that
capitalism does not work in reverse! In order for something as costly as a film
to be produced and distributed there has to be a demand for it. Film financing will claim that it wants to
make culturally progressive media but that ultimately the good stuff doesn't
sell at the box office. In the film
industries defense, it can be argued that after decades of conditioning the
consumer public into expecting, paying for and being entertained by bad cinema
they are justified by financing only those films which fall in line with the
usual lucrative garbage. The first
argument puts black actors to work but in degrading films so it might be
opined, by followers of the latter school, that such actors are putting nails
into their own creative coffins. But the
first school would contend that being paid to play negative roles is better
than not being paid for any role. Does
this argument support the perpetuation of negative stereotypes for black men
simply because it is lucrative? You bet
your bottom dollar it does! So there is
a great deal of profit in the perpetuation of racist stereotypes whether they
reflect real life or not. Nobody held a
gun to any black American’s head during The classic Blacksploitation Film Era
of the 1970’s, indeed it was not necessary because Black Americans were so
eager simply to see faces that looked like them on the silver screen they would
have paid many times over to see what are now looked down upon as culturally
dysfunctional films. That is the legacy
of the first school, its students so desperate for image they never challenged
it’s context because seeing black faces in films filled a void that everyone
thought could be tweaked later down the line… The problem is that later down
the line never happened; we are still hoping to tweak the problem fifty years
later.
The first school is a hand that cannot touch its own nose;
it merely exists at the behest of those who find it convenient to get rich off
of the talent of actors and the ignorance of consumers. The second is a hand
that can touch its nose but only when nobody is looking. The second schools' argument would require
black people to raise the bar by creating their own bar; owning and producing
their own quality films and gradually cultivating an audience. There is a real financial gamble involved in
the assumption that black patrons will pay to see the "Better" films
as opposed to the "Garbage" films they are used to, as assessed
through the eyes of the second school of thought.
So in conclusion, it might be a more idealistic
philosophical argument to say that cinema with more substantive and
intellectually progressive material is a better way to upgrade the consciousness
of black filmgoing audiences but a more financially sound and therefore
realistic argument to say that filmgoing audiences might not patronize
"Better" films if they considered them too deep or high-brow or
simply because they just don't like the subject matter. This is not to say black people are not
intellectual but rather that their history of patronage shows greater interest
in other genres.
Right now what is commonly viewed as the black community is
largely massed on the demand side of the economic curve rather than the supply
side! Simply put, black owned film
production and marketing businesses are not yet plentiful or powerful enough to
offer a home to what would certainly be an entirely new world of black actors,
screenwriters, technical and marketing staff who would operate the machine of a
global black cinematic empire. If ever
it gets to a point where this untapped market becomes robust enough to support
the production of higher quality films with more intellectual subject matter
matched with an audience that will pay to see these films we might be surprised
at the kinds of magnificent black cinema that can be made. If that time ever
comes, and it will, the argument over what constitutes good black cinema vs bad
black cinema can be made within a far more robust, ethnically and economically
well-grounded climate. The idealist and
the realist must combine forces in order to create conditions where this
argument is even plausible and that must serve to become the catalyst for
realizing this dream!
Written by David Vollin
Administrator: FOR THE BROTHAS INTELLECTUAL SALON