Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Coen brothers get very defensive when asked why their movies are so white

But they are Blanche, they are

[quote]The Daily Beast’s Jen Yamato asked the Coens to address the “overwhelming whiteness” of “Hail, Caesar!” in the face of ongoing discussions about Hollywood’s low level of diversity. “I asked the Coens to respond to criticisms that there aren’t more minority characters in the film,” she wrote. “In other words, why is #HailCaesarSoWhite?”

[quote]“Why would there be?” replied Joel. “I don’t understand the question. No — I understand that you’re asking the question, I don’t understand where the question comes from.“Not why people want more diversity — why they would single out a particular movie and say, ‘Why aren’t there black or Chinese or Martians in this movie? What’s going on?’ That’s the question I don’t understand. The person who asks that question has to come in the room and explain it to me.”

[quote]Yamato asked whether they consider it important for filmmakers to add in issues such as diversity.“Not in the least!” Ethan responded. “It’s important to tell the story you’re telling in the right way, which might involve black people or people of whatever heritage or ethnicity -- or it might not.”“It’s an absolute, absurd misunderstanding of how things get made to single out any particular story and say, ‘Why isn’t this, that or the other thing [included]?’” answered Joel. “It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how stories are written. So you have to start there and say, ‘You don’t know what you’re talking about.’ “

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 239February 7, 2016 7:46 PM

They should have cast blacks, Indians, Chinese, and more blacks in A SERIOUS MAN. Because specificity is a terrible, awful, horrible thing to encounter in fiction. All stories should be about everybody, not somebody.

Can the world get any stupider?

by Anonymousreply 1February 4, 2016 10:53 PM

The Coens have not had a significant role for an actor of color since Irma P Hall in The Ladykillers.

by Anonymousreply 2February 4, 2016 10:58 PM

They should have cast Precious as Hattie McDaniel

by Anonymousreply 3February 4, 2016 11:05 PM

Venezuelan actress Veronica Osorio does have a small role in Hail Caesar, although by and large the Cohens have tended to populate their casts with nearly all Caucasian actors.

However, little known fact: Joel Coen and Frances McDormand's adopted son is Hispanic.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4February 4, 2016 11:15 PM

People can cast who they want. People can go see the films if they want. And people who are not cast need to shut up. If audiences want to see them they'll be hired. If not, they won't.

People do not enjoy film for the chance to celebrate affirmative-action quota maintenance. I've seen more than one movie ruined by silly casting to attain some sort of imagined propriety.

As long as no one questions people doing movies that contain only one minority group, other people need to be still and stop making something of nothing.

by Anonymousreply 5February 4, 2016 11:19 PM

Are we going to attack every director if they fail put more minorities in their films? Why not just encourage them to consider it when they write a film. The Coens are Preston Struges - Billy Wilder of their time. I want more diversity as well. Movies are creatures of habit. I don't think they are brave enough or interested in more diversity. That's what television is for.

by Anonymousreply 6February 5, 2016 12:46 AM

I know Jen Yamamoto, she's huge on the film festival scene. She's in Elijah Wood's all white crew where she is the token minoriry. Eye roll...

by Anonymousreply 7February 5, 2016 2:53 AM

I want to know why they do not cast more openly gay actors.

by Anonymousreply 8February 5, 2016 2:56 AM

Film makers can cast whom they want. It's ridiculous to ask them to cast for diversity unless a role calls for it. Not sure why people whine about Woody Allen not casting black people in his movies. Do they actually think he socializes with anyone but mostly white jewish people?

by Anonymousreply 9February 5, 2016 3:01 AM

This is a diverse country, and our films ought to reflect that. It's not just white people around here, anymore.

by Anonymousreply 10February 5, 2016 3:33 AM

Perhaps the reason is because neither Ethan or Joel have ever worked with someone who is not white.

by Anonymousreply 11February 5, 2016 3:39 AM

Hollywood is not so liberal after all. Movies by white people, for white people.

by Anonymousreply 12February 5, 2016 3:47 AM

It doesn't have to be reflected in EVERY film made, r10. You don't like the amount of diversity in a film then don't go and see the film. Nobody is forcing you to see the movie.

by Anonymousreply 13February 5, 2016 3:47 AM

Not just the Coens, Scorsese and Woody Allen never have blacks in their movies.

by Anonymousreply 14February 5, 2016 3:49 AM

Do black people even watch Coen brothers films? Every single one of them seems like pedantic white bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 15February 5, 2016 4:03 AM

Scorsese rarely has big roles for women in his movies. I am a woman. I don't demand he put women in his movies. I just don't watch them cause only men movies bore me.

by Anonymousreply 16February 5, 2016 4:07 AM

Do they watch Woody Allen films, R15? Same type of art.

by Anonymousreply 17February 5, 2016 4:14 AM

"This is a diverse country, and our films ought to reflect that. It's not just white people around here, anymore."

Okay Jada, we get it! You HATE Hollywood.

We get it.

by Anonymousreply 18February 5, 2016 4:15 AM

Look at all the white homos resentful that somebody notices the "whites only" casting in Coen bros. movies. I'm sure the Coen bros. have never spoken to anyone darker than Wonder Bread, forget about casting "others."

by Anonymousreply 19February 5, 2016 4:25 AM

I am black and most film sets are rather white, in front of and behind camera.

by Anonymousreply 20February 5, 2016 4:44 AM

And, yes, I watch Coen Bros films, as well as films with every kind of person in them. I think this inclusion shit is going a bit far.

by Anonymousreply 21February 5, 2016 4:45 AM

Isn't the time-period/era for this comedy movie 1950s Hollywood? It seems the film would fail to evoke the time period and circumstance if cast with a high level of diversity.

by Anonymousreply 22February 5, 2016 4:47 AM

Lena Horne was signed to MGM, Chinese actor Keye Luke was a contract player so it's not like there weren't minorities working at the time to come off as anachronistic.

by Anonymousreply 23February 5, 2016 4:53 AM

I think she would have a better point if the film was about the Chinese experience in Hollywood in the '50's and the cast was all white.

by Anonymousreply 24February 5, 2016 4:59 AM

Let "diverse" people make "diverse" movies for a 'diverse" audience, starring "diverse" actors and "diverse" behind-the-camera talent. Storytelling isn't the place for "diverse" unless that's what the story is about. No disingenuous diversity, please.

by Anonymousreply 25February 5, 2016 5:04 AM

R23 Lena Horne and Keye Luke were the exception and not mainstream stars from 1950s Hollywood! Why not mention a star such as Anthony Quinn to bolster your claim? So versatile, he was cast to play American Indians, Mexicans, Greeks, Italians and even a Bedouin Arab (Lawrence of Arabia).

by Anonymousreply 26February 5, 2016 5:11 AM

I've watched a couple of their movies and I've accepted that I just don't get them. I cringed all through Burn After Reading, cringed through o brother where art though, thought, "what the hell" through Fargo and I cringe when I see the commercials for Hail Ceasar. Yet critics and film dweebs cream all over these guys. Not interested in watching any more of their films ever. Life's too short.

Billy Wiler, they are not. Not even close.

by Anonymousreply 27February 5, 2016 5:19 AM

Yeah, R27. The Coens can keep their all white films. Fargo was vastly overrated.

by Anonymousreply 28February 5, 2016 5:28 AM

R25 And where do you propose the "diverse" people (what a quaint, but nonetheless implicitly racist phrase) get the funding to make such movies, since Hollywood is still primarily controlled by white men? You are either very stupid or being willfully ignorant.

by Anonymousreply 29February 5, 2016 5:33 AM

R29.. you mean "since Hollywood is still primarily controlled by JEWISH white men", doncha?

Don't think Presbyterians get a look-see. WASPs are the equivalent of black people in this instance.

by Anonymousreply 30February 5, 2016 5:36 AM

The setting is old time Hollywood. The only Black people were servants or token maid and butler roles. Recreating any Black characters of the time would offend the SJW mafia even more.

'O Brother Where Art Thou' has several Black characters.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31February 5, 2016 5:38 AM

Symbolic Charon character in the same film.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 32February 5, 2016 5:40 AM

Opening scene of the same film: Historically accurate and symbolic at the same time.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 33February 5, 2016 5:41 AM

R10 makes the correct point—there is no excuse for a lack of diversity. The Coen brothers make film which should not have to be reserved for whites only.

by Anonymousreply 34February 5, 2016 5:50 AM

Then why don't Tyler Perry movies have any white people?

by Anonymousreply 35February 5, 2016 5:52 AM

R29...This is the bullshit that doesn't get anyone anywhere. Studios only make so many films. It is not their responsibility to be "diverse." They make a product. You like it...you buy it. If not, there are plenty of other avenues for your entertainment dollars.

No one has it easy. Well, unless you're already rich or connected. Even beauty and talent are a dime a dozen. If you want to see yourself on screen (which I think we all do)...then make your fucking movie. Make money at it, and see how much easier the next one is. But this diversity argument is like all those people bitching about Yale. Yale is not the only college. Hollywood is not the only path to filmmaking. There is enough African American talent, money and power to make whatever films they wanted. The issue is that they want OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY to do it.

My film school program was very diverse. Nothing is stopping me or my classmates from making films. NOTHING. If the African American community (or any other community) doesn't have the films that it feels it deserves...it only has itself to blame.

by Anonymousreply 36February 5, 2016 5:52 AM

The lack of major black characters in Hail Caesar! is deliberate and pointed because there were almost no major roles for back actors in big studio films at this time. There is one black character in the film, and it's clear why he's cast in this role.

by Anonymousreply 37February 5, 2016 5:53 AM

[quote]The issue is that they want WHITEY'S MONEY to do it.

Fixed.

by Anonymousreply 38February 5, 2016 5:55 AM

I think it's an interesting conversation to have and I. Glad it's been raised. I love the Coens but I'd never thought abut this aspect of their films and it is interesting to have that bias explored.

It makes me think of the character on the Fargo TV show, Mike Milligan, and how they hired a black actor to play the part even though he'd been written as white and it opened up a ton of interesting possibilies for the character and the show. Milligan is iconic now

by Anonymousreply 39February 5, 2016 5:55 AM

[quote]The lack of major black characters in Hail Caesar! is deliberate and pointed because there were almost no major roles for back actors in big studio films at this time. There is one black character in the film, and it's clear why he's cast in this role

I saw the film the other night, I'm racking my brain trying to recall a black character in it.

[quote]Then why don't Tyler Perry movies have any white people?

That'll be news to Cole Hauser, Kathy Bates, Chad Michael Murray, Alicia Witt, Denise Richards, Eugene Levy and the other white actors he's cast in his films.

by Anonymousreply 40February 5, 2016 6:01 AM

R7, I'm not completely familiar with Elijah Woods work but he did produce that acclaimed Iranian vampire movie which was directed by an Iranian woman. That alone is more diverse than anything these dudes have ever done.

That said I don't think they should be forced or shamed into hiring people of color. The excuse that audiences prefer white actors thing is bullshit though. People will see a movie that looks good. This is why hail ceasar is expected to flop hard, white cast be damned!

by Anonymousreply 41February 5, 2016 6:02 AM

Hollywood doesn't use quotas. They're not the U.S. Postal Service.

Any theatre company can, and many have, from Broadway to community groups, use racially-blind casting for Shakespeare, Brecht or many classic plays. But a period film, even a satire, should have some semblance of reality.

by Anonymousreply 42February 5, 2016 6:05 AM

I agree with the Coens. They are telling very specific stories and you can't dictate that actors from a specific demographic be cast in every movie. Of course, most Hollywood movies are very generic and there is no reason why most of the actors in those movies should be white males.

That said, I will never understand why so many on this board defend Woody Allen when he seems to be one of the most homophobic of auteur directors. The wealthy cultural milieu that he attempts to portray in his movies consists, in real life, of people from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds including many African-Americans ...and, of course, an overwhelming number of gay men and lesbians. You don't see that mix in his movies.

by Anonymousreply 43February 5, 2016 6:17 AM

[Quote]People can cast who they want. People can go see the films if they want. And people who are not cast need to shut up. If audiences want to see them they'll be hired. If not, they won't.

BULLSHIT.

The majority of American have very little interest in seeing gays portrayed in films, especially in sexual situations, and yet there is a healthy, steady stream of gay themed movies and tv shows being made every year.

Why? Because there is a a significant number of gay, white males in key positions in the industry who make sure projects portraying positive, gay, male white characters get to see the light of day. They benefit from their close knit associations in hiring and promoting talent. There have been various threads on here over the years about the gay influence on Broadway, especially as it relates to selecting directors for certain productions.

by Anonymousreply 44February 5, 2016 6:20 AM

[quote]The majority of American have very little interest in seeing gays portrayed in films, especially in sexual situations, and yet there is a healthy, steady stream of gay themed movies and tv shows being made every year.

Your "healthy stream" of gay movies, please. I fear I missed most of those great gay movies that followed BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN in the past decade.

by Anonymousreply 45February 5, 2016 6:23 AM

R45, completely misses the point. Go back to your nap.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 46February 5, 2016 6:33 AM

R41 if only you knew Ana Lily... Elwood is a master of pandering

by Anonymousreply 47February 5, 2016 6:35 AM

This is the first I've heard of most of those movies, R46, and the one that appears most mainstream is about priests who fucked altar boys. Not exactly a positive gay story.

by Anonymousreply 48February 5, 2016 6:38 AM

Even Streisand doesn't have mnorities in her films that she has directed. She's had very few in the movies that she's starred except for maids, background singers and the fighters and trainer in the Main Event. I forgot about the guy in For Pete's Sake who helps her out of some situations. Wood Allen has no place for blacks in his films.

by Anonymousreply 49February 5, 2016 6:42 AM

Scorsese's films are all without interesting women characters (they're all either mothers or sluts) and no blacks. And Scorsese always get a pass.

by Anonymousreply 50February 5, 2016 6:46 AM

[quote]And Scorsese always get a pass.

That's because Scorsese is Italian Catholic.

by Anonymousreply 51February 5, 2016 6:59 AM

This reminds me that I have to have Viola stop by the house and pick up my dry cleaning.

by Anonymousreply 52February 5, 2016 7:05 AM

Did you miss The Age of Innocence, R50?

by Anonymousreply 53February 5, 2016 7:10 AM

I forgot about all the blacks in The Age of Innocence.

by Anonymousreply 54February 5, 2016 7:32 AM

There was a black extra playing a slave type role in one of the scenes they were filming.

There were also a few Asian people working at an Asian restaurant Josh Brolin's character went to for a meeting.

The Asian people had as many lines as Jonah Hill. Almost every role in the film is a supporting cameo for only one scene.

Really it's about the period the film is about. Would you cast white people as slaves and black women whipping them as the plantation owners? It would shatter any semblance of reality.

Making a character just to be a token is just as offensive and the filmmaker will get just as much criticism if there is anything that can be perceived as a stereotype. They will get criticism no matter what.

I would not make a film about trans people just to include trans people because I don't know any and don't know enough about them to make the character authentic and not be a stereotype.

by Anonymousreply 55February 5, 2016 7:34 AM

R29, Biopic make money and don't cost as much. Universal themes of wanting to be successful. How about writing one on the man who helped invent the cell phone or any other minority hero? Better if it's a product used by China, Russia, or Dubai as that's where many films now re-coup their money.

Other wise the studios are too high up in the food chain for unknown talent. Go the film festival route. If your film is popular and looks like it will make $$ well, there's only one color Hollywood really loves . . . GREEN.

by Anonymousreply 56February 5, 2016 7:40 AM

What's with this colored troll we've been saddled with on the DL? Kill it. Block it.

by Anonymousreply 57February 5, 2016 7:42 AM

Goodbye Colored Troll. Goodbye.

by Anonymousreply 58February 5, 2016 7:44 AM

It takes place in the 40s, doesn't it? That's the answer right there.

by Anonymousreply 59February 5, 2016 7:44 AM

50s

by Anonymousreply 60February 5, 2016 7:47 AM

It was like watching Grease Live last week. It made me wonder were high schools really integrated in the 50s when Grease was set when the Civil Rights Act was not even until 1964? My parents were not even born until the late 50s so I have no idea but my guess would be no.

by Anonymousreply 61February 5, 2016 7:49 AM

R50, no blacks but Scorsese's Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore was a so-called woman's movie. A few more interesting characters, Karen in Goodfellas and Ginger in Casino although mothers and Ginger may have been a slut.

by Anonymousreply 62February 5, 2016 7:51 AM

Samuel Jackson got shot in the head in "Goodfellas". That's something.

by Anonymousreply 63February 5, 2016 7:52 AM

R59, R60 In this instance, 40s or 50s, same difference

by Anonymousreply 64February 5, 2016 7:54 AM

All of this race bating by minorities and white guilters is tiresome. Yes, we're all a bunch of big racists. Now fuck off and deal with it. Whitey's not gonna give you anything no more. Whitey hates you. The end.

by Anonymousreply 65February 5, 2016 8:25 AM

Isn't this more of a target demographic appeal issue? I mean a diverse cast attracts more demographics, right? So it's more about "why do you only pander to the white demographic and give other groups, like the black community, a good reason to watch your movies?". It's not about the movie itself requiring diversity, it's about mass appeal vs. targeting specific demographics.

by Anonymousreply 66February 5, 2016 8:25 AM

sorry, I meant "why do you only pander to the white demographic and NOT give other groups, like the black community, a good reason to watch your movies?"

by Anonymousreply 67February 5, 2016 8:26 AM

They are from Minnesota and don't know shit about anything but white and Jewish. So can they even write a black character? I am not giving them a pass but they are my favorite directors.

by Anonymousreply 68February 5, 2016 8:38 AM

Things will only really change when these few generations of oldsters [50 and above] die out completely.

Time will fix all, so be patient children.

by Anonymousreply 69February 5, 2016 8:50 AM

R66 It sounds like you are arguing for Hollywood to "pander" more to black people, but isn't that when the complaints rush in about tokenism and stereotypes and how the black guy always gets killed first or why does the black guy act white or why is the black guy a stereotype of a criminal or slave or why can't the black guy date a black woman?

When I saw "Hail, Caesar!" there was a preview for an upcoming romcom with a black man (Shemar Moore) and Latina woman I didn't recognize. Do you think people will be grateful for that or complain that the woman is not black?

There really is no winning. It is impossible to please everyone with one film. Good thing there are lots to choose from right?

by Anonymousreply 70February 5, 2016 9:02 AM

Just fuck off r70, racist cunt.

by Anonymousreply 71February 5, 2016 9:14 AM

In the Channing Tatum / Hail Caesar thread there is a link to the Nothing Like A Dame number from South Pacific which actually was made in Hollywood at the time depicted by the Coen brothers. The scene includes some (gorgeous!) men of color so yes, there could have been non- whites in Canning's dance number and still be true to the period.

by Anonymousreply 72February 5, 2016 10:25 AM

It's their movies. Why can't they use whom ever they want?

by Anonymousreply 73February 5, 2016 10:30 AM

[quote]Do black people even watch Coen brothers films? Every single one of them seems like pedantic white bullshit.

I used to. Until I realized that they are pedantic white bullshit, and they really have no reason to have any diversity. Their stories are very specific and rooted in the pre or post war era. So, I think this topic really doesn't apply to them and I respect his answer.

[quote]People can cast who they want. People can go see the films if they want. And people who are not cast need to shut up. If audiences want to see them they'll be hired. If not, they won't.

Which is the same theory people had for gay characters 25 years ago, but you still had your flannels and combat boots in an uproar, didn't you? My how quickly we forget when it doesn't relate to you.

[quote]All of this race bating by minorities and white guilters is tiresome. Yes, we're all a bunch of big racists. Now fuck off and deal with it. Whitey's not gonna give you anything no more. Whitey hates you. The end.

Actually, this is the absolute truth. But I love when white people get tired of hearing about racism. Try actually experiencing some because THAT's tiresome. And child, save your reverse racism stories.

by Anonymousreply 74February 5, 2016 11:00 AM

[quote]And child, save your reverse racism stories.

Because it is just as tiring?

by Anonymousreply 75February 5, 2016 11:07 AM

Who the fuck cares? You didn't hear whites bitching that there wasn't enough pale flesh in the blackploitation movies of the seventies. If blacks want more blacks let them tell their own stories.

by Anonymousreply 76February 5, 2016 11:51 AM

Please, Lena Horn was a big star back then. Lazy people who do not research or rely on "I wasn'the born at that time" ignorance. They had to re-edit whole movies she was in because white people in the South refused to see her acting with other white stars. Her father was her agent or manager and he caused a lot of controversy at the studios because he refused to any offers that involved her playing a domestic.

Now you are telling me that is not an interesting story to touch on when you are telling behind the scenes stories like an actress having a fake marriage when they got pregnant and did not have an abortion?

by Anonymousreply 77February 5, 2016 12:04 PM

[quote]All of this race bating by minorities and white guilters is tiresome. Yes, we're all a bunch of big racists. Now fuck off and deal with it. Whitey's not gonna give you anything no more. Whitey hates you. The end.

Exactly.

Let's see the scripts that Black writers are writing. Let's see the script workshops they're creating....the off B'way plays of their material. Let's see the homemade YouTube videos of Black stories created by Blacks.

Let's see them. People are making films with their fucking IPhone. You can build a HUGE audience with YouTube.

Why are Blacks so fucking dependent on crumbs from Whitey? Get your shit together, take POWER and create your own great art. The White man is NEVER going to please you. You already know that, so do it yourself.

by Anonymousreply 78February 5, 2016 12:51 PM

They didn't get defensive, they replied with perfect logic and rationality. Good for them. These guilt-loving, vicitimhood-embracing millennial twits are tedious beyond belief.

by Anonymousreply 79February 5, 2016 1:31 PM

WHY ARE THERE NO UNIPEDS IN THE COENS FILMS!?? THIS HOLLYWOOD BIPED PRIVILEGE MUST END!!!!

by Anonymousreply 80February 5, 2016 1:37 PM

They were totally defensive R79. They made it perfectly clear that they will continue with their All-White movies and no one will stop them!

by Anonymousreply 81February 5, 2016 2:20 PM

r81 Are you naturally this stupid or does it take practice? :(

by Anonymousreply 82February 5, 2016 2:24 PM

[quote]What's with this colored troll we've been saddled with on the DL? Kill it. Block it.

I'm asking honestly here: are you bitching about a person of color, whom you call "colored," posting on DL, and saying they should be killed and blocked? Or am I missing some context here?

by Anonymousreply 83February 5, 2016 2:27 PM

The Coens can improve their track record on this in the future but they don't want to try R82.

by Anonymousreply 84February 5, 2016 2:28 PM

You could try improving your IQ, r84 but you don't seem to want to try. :(

by Anonymousreply 85February 5, 2016 2:30 PM

[quote]saying they should be killed and blocked?

Not killed AND BLOCKED!!?? That's going too far, isn't it?

by Anonymousreply 86February 5, 2016 2:33 PM

Feckless PR at R85.

by Anonymousreply 87February 5, 2016 2:34 PM

Yeah, because PR would definitely spend time at an obscure gay message board trying to help a member of the braindead community. :)

by Anonymousreply 88February 5, 2016 2:38 PM

The racists who flock to these threads always say something stupid like, "They can do whatever they want" or "They're just telling the story and the story just happens to not include anyone who isn't white."

That's because being racist is pretty much equivalent to being unable to think critically about complicated issues.

The problem is that nearly everyone in Hollywood is like the Coen Bros., and they choose the stories about white characters all the time. That's all they care about. They dress it up with "but the market demands it" or whatever stupid excuse they have, while whistling and plugging their ears when reminded of Creed or the latest Star Wars or the Fast & Furious franchise.

Joel Coen's "you people don't know what you're talking about" comment shows that he believes, or at least claims, the story has mandated certain characters be white, which is ludicrous. It's laughable college kid bullshit. He's an experienced adult who can make his own decisions about his own stories, and his decisions are to make the characters white, but he's too much of a fucking baby to even admit it. He acts like a nerdy child who throws a tantrum and calls everyone else stupid, just to cover his own ass and not take responsibility for his own choices.

I mean, I can't even imagine what would happen if we asked him about writing a black male character who mispronounces words and shouts, "I'm gonna nail yo' ass!" all the time. Or writing a villain for Unbroken who is coded as gay, like some homophobic bullshit movie from the 1950s.

They're old-fashioned misanthropes who live in a vacuum chamber of whiteys makin' money for other whiteys, and their audience is apparently DLers, people who completely lose their shit at the mere suggestion of including more non-white people in movies.

by Anonymousreply 89February 5, 2016 2:38 PM

You're white, aren't you, r89?

by Anonymousreply 90February 5, 2016 2:40 PM

I'm a middle class white person with too much time on my hands and a penchant for condescending to black people.

by Anonymousreply 91February 5, 2016 2:42 PM

[quote]You didn't hear whites bitching that there wasn't enough pale flesh in the blackploitation movies of the seventies.

Yes they did, you fucking moron. People like you bitched ALL THE TIME about how white people were portrayed as villains in blaxploitation films, and said there should be more white "good guys" in them.

by Anonymousreply 92February 5, 2016 2:42 PM

Are you kidding me, R88? That's what PR get paid to do these days!

by Anonymousreply 93February 5, 2016 2:43 PM

[quote]I'm a middle class white person with too much time on my hands and a penchant for condescending to black people. —r89

And you're an attention-starved imbecile who doesn't know how to sockpuppet properly, and who uses smiley faces to convey deep thoughts.

by Anonymousreply 94February 5, 2016 2:44 PM

[quote]And you're an attention-starved imbecile who doesn't know how to sockpuppet properly, and who uses smiley faces to convey deep thoughts.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 95February 5, 2016 2:50 PM

Hollywood is myopic. They only see Blacks or Latinos in "race" roles. They need to do a better job of being more inclusive. Quentin Tarrantino does it, and he isn't self conscious about it. With Pulp Fiction he didn't have to cast Samule L. Jackson in that role. It didn't require a Black character. he could have cast anyone. That's my idea of inclusive. Hollywood is way too self conscious, too race conscious. I see a lot of progress but there's a long way to go. I'm glad Zooey Saldana is on Guardians of the Galaxy. That's what I'm talking about.

The Coens were making a movie about Hollywood in the 50's. I would have loved to see some sly character like Samuel L. Jackson's butler from Django, but they apparently had a different perspective. It's not wrong, it's just different.

by Anonymousreply 96February 5, 2016 3:06 PM

[quote]And child, save your reverse racism stories.

[quote]Because it is just as tiring?

Uh...no. Because it's disingenuous and you ONLY use it as a defense when you get called out.

by Anonymousreply 97February 5, 2016 3:14 PM

[quote]Pulp Fiction... That's my idea of inclusive.

Is that the one where the white dude who wrote and directed it spends most of his time saying "nigger"? Yeah, if only the Coens were more "inclusive" like that. And in what way is Sam Jackson's part in Django not a "race role"??? The race of the black characters is central to the theme of the movie. I would never use a term such as "race role" as it's extremely condescending to the people who have played those individuals to see their race as the defining characteristic.

by Anonymousreply 98February 5, 2016 3:17 PM

Don't you people know that if Whitey does something, he has to include black people or he's racist? That's the rule. There's no way around it.

It only applies to Whitey, though. Black people don't have to give Whitey anything more than a hard time, all the time.

by Anonymousreply 99February 5, 2016 3:46 PM

I'm the first to say that I don't care for the Coen brothers films. Got over them a long time ago. But if this is the only issue people have against them (or films in general) well going to movies is not really their priority.

by Anonymousreply 100February 5, 2016 3:52 PM

Art need not apologise, but Tyler Perry sure needs to.

by Anonymousreply 101February 5, 2016 3:58 PM

And while we're at it, why are there no black characters in Jane Austen movies? I would have loved to have seen Samuel L. Jackson in "Sense & Sensibility"

by Anonymousreply 102February 5, 2016 4:04 PM

[quote]Because it's disingenuous and you ONLY use it as a defense when you get called out.

R97 About as disingenuous as knee-jerk accusations of "racist" and "racism".

by Anonymousreply 103February 5, 2016 4:08 PM

Similarly, Samuel L. Jackson would have been perfectly cast in "Ordinary People" as Conrad. "So you say Buck would never have been in that hospital? You can eat hot lead, muthafuckin uptight honky bitch!"

by Anonymousreply 104February 5, 2016 4:09 PM

My favorite bit of colorblind casting: at the National Theatre in London they put on a production of His Dark Materials. They cast a black actor as Lord Asriel. The problem was the big reveal in His Dark Materials is that Lord Asriel is the biological father of the heroine Lyra. Lyra was played by a little blonde actress. When Asriel revealed he was in fact Lyra's father, the whole audience giggled.

by Anonymousreply 105February 5, 2016 4:16 PM

Aren't they from the far north of the US where brown sorts are few? We can laugh at Woody's all-white NYC films because it is clear he is ignoring so many of its residents, but Coens' do mostly white stories with white people...

by Anonymousreply 106February 5, 2016 4:21 PM

R77 Please, "big star back then" (1950s Hollywood) for actresses who were widely recognized and famous for playing leading roles- Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Elizabeth Taylor, Marilyn Monroe, Doris Day, Kim Novak, Ava Gardner just to name a few. Lena Horne may have had the talent and may have been just as captivating on film but she was not a big star.

by Anonymousreply 107February 5, 2016 5:02 PM

Erica should have been played by me.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 108February 5, 2016 5:04 PM

Remember when mainstream Hollywood started foisting black actors onto Knights of the Round Table and Robin Hood stories?

by Anonymousreply 109February 5, 2016 5:20 PM

"Blanche. " Heh.

by Anonymousreply 110February 5, 2016 5:25 PM

R98 I said, if you will read with understanding, that Samuel L. Jackson's character in PULP FICTION was not a specifically Black character. Obviously the character of the Butler in Django WAS a specifically Black character. Capish? If the Coen brothers were making a movie about Hollywood in the 50's, of necessity the type of roles in movies back then would limit characters for African American.s So I suggested that, it could have been funny, IMO if they had created a character similar to Samuel L Jackson's butler in Django, as part of the story line. But they apparently went in another direction. In point of fact, the absence of Black roles or casting in the Coen brothers latest, highlights the exact problem we are talking about.

I long for he old days when posters at DL were a lot smarter and more discerning. It was SO much easier to argue and discuss with people back then.

by Anonymousreply 111February 5, 2016 5:59 PM

R72, Since the theme of South Pacific was interracial dating and marriage it would be hypocritical to have the dancers be all white men. Agreed the Coen Brothers should have been more historically accurate.

by Anonymousreply 112February 5, 2016 6:04 PM

R79, TV is an easier medium to start out in. There's a small Black owned production co in Santa Monica seeking "Reality TV" content for future cable and network shows. They're already producing talk shows in England and across the US. Currently they're seeking small Black owned businesses whose owners "understand" what "Reality TV" is all about.. Pushing an online friend whose Cogdill's offers catering, entertainment, music, as well as a small restaurant.

Agreed that if you have any talent in comedy the way to go is creating online content, and then establishing a large following. Helped my Lebanese-American comic friend up his IMDb followers to 40,00.

by Anonymousreply 113February 5, 2016 6:20 PM

[quote]I long for he old days when posters at DL were a lot smarter and more discerning.

Me, too.

[quote]Capish?

Capisce?

[quote]Hollywood in the 50's

And there's no apostrophe in "50s", my love.

The rest of your post is even more baffling. x

by Anonymousreply 114February 5, 2016 6:27 PM

When posters like R71 just say, "fuck off" and call someone racist without any coherent or logical response to the substance of the previous poster's legitimate points, that's why people don't take you seriously.

Has it ever worked for you to change someone's mind by attacking them? You just prove their point.

by Anonymousreply 115February 5, 2016 6:43 PM

[quote][R97] About as disingenuous as knee-jerk accusations of "racist" and "racism".

Yeah, I don't think calling out an industry that has not nominated a person of color for a major award in the past two years is a "Knee-jerk accusation" nor is asking two major film directors why no people of color are ever in their movies.

I think both examples are pretty much beyond knee-jerk accusations whether you agree them or not.

by Anonymousreply 116February 5, 2016 6:46 PM

I mostly don't like the Coen Bros' movies. And it has nothing to do with race. I am white. I just find them boring, and the fuss made over them incomprehensible.

by Anonymousreply 117February 5, 2016 6:47 PM

[quote] why no people of color are ever in their movies

This simply isn't true. If you think this you haven't seen the film and just want to complain because it's currently in vogue to accuse as many people of racism as possible without considering any other rational reasons like Will Smith's performance was not good or Idris Elba's performance was on Netflix which most of the Academy sees as television.

I mean, how many films did Julianne Moore make before she won an Oscar? Or Glenn Close? Or Scorsese? People don't just get handed Oscars, they are an exclusive thing, yet lots of black people do have them. John Legend and Common just last right? And all the 12 Years a Slave Oscars the year before? And Jennifer Hudson and Monique and Halle Berry and Denzel Washington and Cuba Gooding Jr. and on and on and on.

by Anonymousreply 118February 5, 2016 6:54 PM

@r70 nailed it! Brilliantly sums up why there is no point to pandering to black people on these issues. Racial grievance politics is not about improving anyone's quality of life, it's just so racist blacks can get all self righteous about ANYTHING and hurl racist accusations at whites.

by Anonymousreply 119February 5, 2016 6:57 PM

I feel the same way about Wes Anderson films, R117, and like the Coen Brothers, his films are mainly a white cast.

What people tend to overlook is Anderson and Coen Brothers are not making big budget films. Hail Caesar had a budget of $22 million. These ARE niche films that ARE NOT made to appeal to a broad audience. We are not talking about a film with a budget on the scale of Guardians of the Galaxy -- a film INTENDED to appeal to a broad audience and one that will play in all overseas markets.

I really don't like Wes Anderson films...so, I don't go see them. He is certainly entitled to make the film he wants despite my thinking he makes a film far to twee for my liking.

by Anonymousreply 120February 5, 2016 6:58 PM

I would have loved to see a Hattie McDaniel or Butterfly McQueen character playing a comical maid in this film though.

by Anonymousreply 121February 5, 2016 7:02 PM

[quote]If you think this you haven't seen the film and just want to complain because it's currently in vogue to accuse as many people of racism as possible without considering any other rational reasons like Will Smith's performance was not good or Idris Elba's performance was on Netflix which most of the Academy sees as television.

Currently in vogue to accuse as many people of racism as possible? Accusing people of racism is "In vogue" you condescending prick? It's the equivalent of wearing Uggs to you? I have not seen this particular Cohen Brother's movie, but it's not the only one they've made, is it?

And by the way, nobody's asking to just handover an Oscar to a person of color. See, you don't even understanding what you're blathering on about. Jesus Christ.

by Anonymousreply 122February 5, 2016 7:23 PM

Wes Anderson is better with multiracial casting.

He managed to feature a Guatemalan actor in a film set in the Austro Hungarian empire.

by Anonymousreply 123February 5, 2016 7:24 PM

Even more in vogue than calling someone a "condescending prick," r122.

by Anonymousreply 124February 5, 2016 7:26 PM

I said "mainly" and not an "all" white cast, R123. Still don't like his movies and still won't begrudge him the right to make what he wants.

Yes, calling people "racist", "bigot" or something along similar lines for simply disagreeing is very in vogue these days.

by Anonymousreply 125February 5, 2016 7:32 PM

Which black actors actually should have been nominated this year and last? Idris Elba, I loved the kid in Beasts of No Nation but little girls can occasionally get Best Actress nominations, but never little boys. The Netflix connection no doubt sank their chances. And the person who was the most screwed by the Academy was the director Fukunaga. Nobody's mentioning him (and he's half-Japanese too!). Will Smith's performance was embarrassing. Michael B. Jordan was good and they could easily have nominated him over boring Matt Damon, but the fact he didn't get nominated is not shocking. Who else?

Last year, David Oyelowo made a big stink about not being nominated but his performance wasn't nearly as good as Gyllenhaal's and he didn't get nominated. I didn't hear any boycotting going on because Gyllenhaal was cheated out of his Oscar by a bunch of Brits.

by Anonymousreply 126February 5, 2016 7:56 PM

[quote]Even more in vogue than calling someone a "condescending prick," [R122].

I think diminishing an entire group of people's perception as "In vogue" is worthy of that title.

[quote]Yes, calling people "racist", "bigot" or something along similar lines for simply disagreeing is very in vogue these days.

What is the simple disagreement here? I'm not seeing anything simple. I just don't think making an observation that people of color have not been nominated in 2 years is a simple disagreement. That's where the condescending prick thing comes in because if this were about gay folks not being recognized for something, you'd be incensed.

by Anonymousreply 127February 5, 2016 8:09 PM

It is not racism for white people to make films with white people for white people. Is it racism for Spike Lee to make films with black people for black people?

We live in a free country. it is economically feasible to make films very very cheaply. So any community who feels underserved by Hollywood should stop whining and do something about it. Write your script. Make your movie.

This is all part of the current liberal multiculturalism bullshit that believes that anything less than 100% colorblindness is racism.

by Anonymousreply 128February 5, 2016 8:10 PM

[quote]stop whining and do something about it. Write your script. Make your movie.

Jews control distribution -- why else have we yet to see a film about the Armenian Genocide?

by Anonymousreply 129February 5, 2016 8:18 PM

R121 You might like Woody Allen's Bullets Over Broadway which had a memorable African American character by the name of Venus, played by AnnieJoe Edwards, who was a stereotypical Mammy. The dialogue between the Venus and Olive characters was hysterical.

by Anonymousreply 130February 5, 2016 8:27 PM

It is simple, R127. The Coen Brothers made $22 million, niche movie and now they are being held out as examples as to why no POC were nominated for an award in the last two years. You, as a poster, are also looking at the last two years in a vacuum.

Selma's director royally screwed over Selma in two ways...first she rewrote recent history -- in a very racist and insulting way -- and then she and Oprah sent out their screeners way too late. By the director's own admission, she changed history so the white guy, President Johnson, wasn't the hero he was in real life. Without Johnson, the civil rights movement would still be fought today. Also, you need to campaign for an Oscar, it's like an election. She and Oprah campaigned little and sent out screeners to members very late in the game (second time for Oprah too, you'd think she'd learn).

This year, Netflix screwed BONN by airing it on Netflix the same day it was released in 33 theatres. And, Amazon did the same to Spike Lee's film -- so you can take both out of the running for a MOTION PICTURE award.

Whose left? Will Smith? His performance was a joke. His accent was awful. Michael Jordan? Maybe.

So who, R127, do you think was overlooked? How about the the past 15 years where POC were nominated and did win awards? Did we forget about the past? Or are we looking at some sort of quota that needs to be filled?

by Anonymousreply 131February 5, 2016 8:29 PM

Yes, R122, it is a hallmark of our current victim culture to accuse as many people and things and organizations of racism as possible because it has become a badge of honor to be wronged even where there is not even an injustice so people have started imagining them.

The definition of "racist" has somehow recently changed to "someone who disagrees with you about anything, no matter how slight."

by Anonymousreply 132February 5, 2016 9:46 PM

Ava Du Vernay's rewrite of history sunk Selma's chances. Bobby Kennedy wiretapped MLK, not LBJ. Califano, Julian Bond and Andrew Young (who were actually present during the meetings between LBJ and MLK) contradicted Du Vernay's bullshit historical revisionism.

by Anonymousreply 133February 5, 2016 10:17 PM

R107, Horn was a big star then especially among POC at that time, regardless of you thinking only people like Better Davis were stars. Why the fucked would they even cast her in a movie with the hassle of having to edit her out for Southern viewers if she was not hughly popular and had not influence on boxoffice? Because MGM was ahead of the diversity curve? Try money. For a lot of POC she was one of the rare blacks in MGM movies who were not relegated to domestics in movies at that time and that is why they wanted to see her.

And if this movie is a satire of old time movie backstages, think of the field day they could have had with all the white actors from John Wayne to Hepburn using makeup and wigs to look Asian, Native America, Latino...rather than hire someone who is.

by Anonymousreply 134February 5, 2016 10:47 PM

Wasn't Lena Horne mixed/biracial, very light-skinned, and highly criticized for trying to pass as white?

You think that would have helped people calling the Coens racist?

by Anonymousreply 135February 5, 2016 10:50 PM

I haven't seen a movie, in a movie theater, in over 10 years. It's just like any other business; if I don't feel you give a shit about my 12 bucks, I choose not to support your business. Hollywood and large segments of our country simply refuse to move beyond the image of the stereotypical black. Since I don't see myself reflected in films, I don't spend my money on them. Simple.

by Anonymousreply 136February 5, 2016 11:00 PM

R36 banging spot on! Ain't that the truth.

by Anonymousreply 137February 6, 2016 1:14 AM

Point made by R99. It's really coming down to this.

by Anonymousreply 138February 6, 2016 1:31 AM

The Coens not casting Black people is not a concern of mine as a Black person. It's their choice. What does concern me is the need as Black people we to be validated and always included. We seek approval from the mainstream

by Anonymousreply 139February 6, 2016 1:47 AM

One day Black people will be the majority in the U.S (think the one drop rule), they will make up the majority of the Oscar candidates and of course winners. But whites are still the majority today, I really don't see this as racism, just a reflection of the numbers. There are plenty of attractive and very talented black actors in America, but if you make up 12-13% of the population there is going to be that off year where black performers are not winning or nominated. It's going to happen to white people some day, that's just how it is.

by Anonymousreply 140February 6, 2016 1:50 AM

Was Javier Bardem white?

by Anonymousreply 141February 6, 2016 1:55 AM

[quote]if this were about gay folks not being recognized for something, you'd be incensed.

I haven't expected movies to be about gay men since 2006, when we failed -- conspicuously, I thought -- to be inundated by dozens of major studio movies about gay men in the wake of Brokeback Mountain.

by Anonymousreply 142February 6, 2016 1:59 AM

[quote] nor is asking two major film directors why no people of color are ever in their movies.

Cedric the Entertainer had a big role in the Coen Brothers' "Intolerable Cruelty."

by Anonymousreply 143February 6, 2016 2:03 AM

I think their answer is perfect.

I think asking movies and tv to do the work Al Sharpton does is weird. Write the stories you want to write. Why don't African American writers create the authentic stories they want to see? I feel attacking and bothering white filmmakers and asking them why the stories from their imagination don't match the rainbow coalition in the questioners imagination is a less than compelling way to conduct a social justice project.

by Anonymousreply 144February 6, 2016 2:07 AM

Javier Bardem is not white; he's Hispanic.

So is Oscar Isaac, who had the lead in "Inside Llewyn Davis."

Irma P. Hall (who is black) had one of the major parts in "The Ladykillers," playing a character that was white in the previous version of the movie; Marlon Wayans also had a big part in "The Ladykillers."

by Anonymousreply 145February 6, 2016 2:07 AM

"why else have we yet to see a film about the Armenian Genocide?"

Ooooh! I hope it's a musical!

I can see the 11:00 number: "Finish What You Started, Damn Turks!"

by Anonymousreply 146February 6, 2016 2:17 AM

r146 cries, clicks "ignore" and "flames and freaks," and demands the banishment of anyone who makes fun of Jews .

by Anonymousreply 147February 6, 2016 2:20 AM

R134 You misread my post that was written in response to R77. I never even mentioned Bette Davis. I provided a list of a select few box office stars widely recognized by the industry as big money-making actresses famous for playing LEADING roles DURING THE 1950s.

Not to take away from Lena Horne but when I consider African American Hollywood actresses of the 1950s, first and foremost to my mind is Dorothy Dandridge. She even received an Academy Award nomination as Best Actress for her performance in Carmen Jones (1954). Supposedly, she regretted taking the advice of her then lover, director Otto Preminger, that she accept only leading roles. Simply, there were little if any dramatic vehicles to match her particular celebrity and capabilities.

by Anonymousreply 148February 6, 2016 2:24 AM

A couple of weeks ago a few black people addressed the issue of diversity in the Hollywood. Opponents of racial equality immediately began to malign, demonize, and portray African Americans as greedy parasites in search of a handout. They also attempted to pit African Americans against Asians and Latinos. What about Asians? What about Latinos? They said. They never speak out (which of course is not true) and they are even more underrepresented than blacks are. This week Jen Yamato, who is Asian, addressed the issue of diversity. The same song and dance starts all over again. African Americans are immediately attacked, maligned and demonized. So you're mad at the 37,685,848 African Americans because of Jada Pinkett Smith's and Spike Lee's opinions. You're also made at 37,685.848 African Americans because of Jen Yamato's opinions. So what is this really about, other than the same ole white supremacist bullshit baggage that some of you continue to drag around?

Racial minorities purchased about 1/2 of all movie tickets sold last year. Just like any other consumer, they are entitled to voice their opinion. Consumers complain all the time about Hollywood and the crappy movies that are released each year. Consumers voice their opinions about what they would like to see. Why is it suddenly a problem when the people, who purchase 1/2 of the tickets, complain or voice their opinions about what they would like to see?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 149February 6, 2016 2:44 AM

[quote] “Why would there be?” replied Joel. “I don’t understand the question. No — I understand that you’re asking the question, I don’t understand where the question comes from.“Not why people want more diversity — why they would single out a particular movie and say, ‘Why aren’t there black or Chinese or Martians in this movie? What’s going on?’ That’s the question I don’t understand. The person who asks that question has to come in the room and explain it to me.”

Gee Joel, maybe it's because that cunt George Clooney who stars in and is promoting your shitty film Hail Ceasar replied to the media that Hollywood should hire more black actors. That would be the same George Clooney who rarely hires black actors himself for the shitty films he makes. In a Clooney film a black actor is damn lucky to get a part as a character with an actual name and not just someone in the background. Monuments Men was written, directed and produced by Clooney and starred that other noted civil rights superstar Matt Damon, had zero actors of color. So in the future, Clooney may want to shut the fuck up and stop with the whole, "do as I say, not as I do" bullshit

by Anonymousreply 150February 6, 2016 2:51 AM

imagine eating that ass out ;O delishhhhhhhhhhhhh...give me 5 minutes of EXTASY Channing!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 151February 6, 2016 2:56 AM

Bardim is NOT hispanic. Either is Antonio Banderas or that Penelope Cruz. They are considered white European because they hail from Spain.

by Anonymousreply 152February 6, 2016 3:01 AM

Link please, R149. Cause, according to Neilsen frequent movie goer demographics for 2014 (2015 is not out yet) are not even close to what you cite.

AA made up 3.7% down from 4.3% the year earlier. Caucasians made up 21% and Hispanics were 9.3%.

by Anonymousreply 153February 6, 2016 3:05 AM

I wouldn't say they "get very defensive", OP. They are answering a somewhat dumb question.

by Anonymousreply 154February 6, 2016 3:08 AM

Black people complain when white directors make movies with white actors and black people complain when white directors make movies with black actors, accusing them of hijacking their narratives and telling stories they should be telling themselves. You can't win.

by Anonymousreply 155February 6, 2016 3:12 AM

And R149, of all movie goers (frequent and infrequent) Caucasian still make up the majority of sales @54%.

[quote]Although, Caucasians make up the majority of the population and moviegoers (63%) they represent a smaller share of 2014 ticket sales (54%). Hispanics are more likely than any other ethnic group to purchase movie tickets (23%) relative to their share of the population and share of moviegoers (17%).

AA made up 12% while Asians made up 11%.

by Anonymousreply 156February 6, 2016 3:19 AM

Right R155. You can never win. So these complainers will be ignored.

by Anonymousreply 157February 6, 2016 3:20 AM

We didn't see a film about the Armenian Genocide because MGM was creating one and Louis B. Mayer bowed to Turkish pressure to stop. And the last best chance to stop Hitler's genocide by drawing world attention to what had happened in Turkey in 1915 was lost.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 158February 6, 2016 3:20 AM

[quote] Black people complain when white directors make movies with white actors and black people complain when white directors make movies with black actors, accusing them of hijacking their narratives and telling stories they should be telling themselves. You can't win.

Jen Yamato is not black.

A couple of weeks ago a few black people addressed the issue of diversity in the Hollywood. Opponents of racial equality immediately began to malign, demonize, and portray African Americans as greedy parasites in search of a handout. They also attempted to pit African Americans against Asians and Latinos. What about Asians? What about Latinos? They said. They never speak out (which of course is not true) and they are even more underrepresented than blacks are. This week Jen Yamato, who is Asian, addressed the issue of diversity. The same song and dance starts all over again. African Americans are immediately attacked, maligned and demonized. So you're mad at the 37,685,848 African Americans because of Jada Pinkett Smith's and Spike Lee's opinions. You're also made at 37,685.848 African Americans because of Jen Yamato's opinions. So what is this really about, other than the same ole white supremacist bullshit baggage that some of you continue to drag around?

Racial minorities purchased about 1/2 of all movie tickets sold last year. Just like any other consumer, they are entitled to voice their opinion. Consumers complain all the time about Hollywood and the crappy movies that are released each year. Consumers voice their opinions about what they would like to see. Why is it suddenly a problem when the people, who purchase 1/2 of the tickets, complain or voice their opinions about what they would like to see?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 159February 6, 2016 3:23 AM

Oops, my numbers in R153 are frequent movie goers in millions. The actual percentage of those numbers are...

10% - AA

56% - Caucasian

25% - Hispanic

9% - Asian.

by Anonymousreply 160February 6, 2016 3:27 AM

I'm surprised AA is so low -- they love movies.

by Anonymousreply 161February 6, 2016 3:28 AM

Is that using new math, R160?

by Anonymousreply 162February 6, 2016 3:28 AM

R162 was meant for r159. Over 50% of movie goers are caucasian.

by Anonymousreply 163February 6, 2016 3:32 AM

[quote] The industry is ignoring a gold mine. Every year for the past half-decade, the average white American has bought a ticket to fewer films than the average black, Hispanic or Asian moviegoer, industry data shows. Though 37 percent of the U.S. population, minorities bought 46 percent of the $1.2 billion in tickets sold in the United States last year.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 164February 6, 2016 3:36 AM

Okay, r164, 46% of all minorities is not half. And the WP got it wrong, it's 44% and not 46% per the MPAA.

The other issue that the WP got wrong... do you really think that Asian movie goers will flock to movies that cater to AAs? Will all Latinos flock to these same movies? Now when you break it down by ethnicity, it becomes less of a gold mine. Diversity has diverse interests so it's not helpful to lump all ethnicities into one number.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 165February 6, 2016 3:52 AM

Are white people banned from tonight's NAACP awards?

by Anonymousreply 166February 6, 2016 3:54 AM

People confused Hispanic with mestizos who are mixed with Amerindian blood. Spaniards are NOT "people of color". Neither are any other Southern Europeans. And Latinos who are purebred Spaniards (like Inarritu, Bernal, Cuaron and Del Toro) are NOT mestizos so they are not "people of color" either.

And if you think there isn't contempt by purebred Spanish Latinos for mestizos, you've never been South of the Border. Racism is very strong in Latin America against Amerindians and in Brazil against the enormous mixed-race population.

by Anonymousreply 167February 6, 2016 4:07 AM

You are so not kidding, R167. I live in a building where the Chilean couple hates the Argentinians in the building and the lady from Ecuador hates the Chileans and Argentinians. What's the deal?

by Anonymousreply 168February 6, 2016 4:18 AM

[quote] The Coens have not had a significant role for an actor of color since Irma P Hall in The Ladykillers.

Veronica Osorio, who is Hispanic, has a major part in "Hail Caesar!"

by Anonymousreply 169February 6, 2016 5:17 AM

Okay, [R164], 46% of all minorities is not half.

What I said was:

[quote] Racial minorities purchased about 1/2 of all movie tickets sold last year.

[quote] And the WP got it wrong, it's 44% and not 46% per the MPAA.

Whether is was 44. something% or 46 or 47 or 48 or 49, its still about (meaning almost) 50%.

[quote] The other issue that the WP got wrong... do you really think that Asian movie goers will flock to movies that cater to AAs? Will all Latinos flock to these same movies? Now when you break it down by ethnicity, it becomes less of a gold mine. Diversity has diverse interests so it's not helpful to lump all ethnicities into one number.

You're attempting to pit racial minorities against each other. Non whites are underrepresented in Hollywood. That is what that number represents. People who are not white and who pay millions of dollars to see films in which they do not appear, nothing more, nothing less. Of course there is diversity among nonwhites. There is also diversity within those groups. Just as you find great diversity among whites. However the diversity among whites is not used as an excuse for discrimination or exclusion.

Regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, we all pay our money to see great stories. Great stories transcend race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender etc. Great art transcends race, ethnicity, gender etc. The diversity that exist in this country does not make this less of a gold mine. It means that there are new stories to tell, featuring fresh perspectives. It means that there are dollars that are being left on the table. There are audiences that Hollywood has yet to fully tap into.

by Anonymousreply 170February 6, 2016 5:31 AM

It's funny that people think that the Hollywood film industry is supposed to be some sort of equal opportunity organization.

It's a business. If there's not enough diversity in movies, there's a reason why there's not enough diversity in movies and it isn't racism. It's the same reason why there aren't any openly gay leading men.

Take it up with the people who finance movies and see if you can find any who are willing to put up (and lose) money on your Hollywood "diversity" fantasy.

by Anonymousreply 171February 6, 2016 6:31 AM

R171 I think people believe movies are like TV commercials: you need to have a token representative of every potential group.

by Anonymousreply 172February 6, 2016 6:35 AM

China is buying into Hollywood. It cares about profit, not diversity. Black actors will look back at this era and remember it as a time when work was available.

by Anonymousreply 173February 6, 2016 6:38 AM

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 174February 6, 2016 6:45 AM

[quote] It's a business. If there's not enough diversity in movies, there's a reason why there's not enough diversity in movies and it isn't racism. It's the same reason why there aren't any openly gay leading men. Take it up with the people who finance movies and see if you can find any who are willing to put up (and lose) money on your Hollywood "diversity" fantasy.

Is your point that racial minorities don't go to the movies, or is it that racial minorities are unwilling to pay to see themselves represented on the screen.

[quote] The industry is ignoring a gold mine. Every year for the past half-decade, the average white American has bought a ticket to fewer films than the average black, Hispanic or Asian moviegoer, industry data shows. Though 37 percent of the U.S. population, minorities bought 46 percent of the $1.2 billion in tickets sold in the United States last year.

Which part of that did you not understand?

But keep pushing you white supremacist fantasies. That's what you came here to do.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 175February 6, 2016 7:08 AM

[quote]The industry is ignoring a gold mine.

One person's opinion. And the operative word is "opinion".

by Anonymousreply 176February 6, 2016 7:18 AM

"The industry is ignoring a gold mine."

Yes, because the USA is the only market for films in the world. Sounds like you've got it all figured out. You're pretty smart for a complete retard.

by Anonymousreply 177February 6, 2016 7:24 AM

The lumping in of all "racial minorities" together as an argument for equality in casting is itself so myopic as to be almost racist. For example, Asia is a vast, incredibly diverse place with a huge range of cultural and ethnic types. Remember it starts in Turkey in the west and extends to Japan in the east, from Siberia in the north to Sri Lanka in the south. So to group all Asians in together as one racial type is ridiculous. But the above argument goes even further and throws everyone from Asia in with every non-caucasian under the umbrella term "racial minority" and claims that this nebulous mass buys almost half of all cinema tickets, as though they are all one people being equally ignored. Is the point of this argument that every racial and ethnic variation that constitutes this vast range of people should be "represented" in every film or that at least one "person of color" should be cast in every film as a token representative of all "racial minorities"? Either way it's a stupid argument.

by Anonymousreply 178February 6, 2016 8:44 AM

Also, the fact that that many "non white" people are buying tickets suggests that they're happy enough with the movies being made and released that they're paying money to see those movies. I realize this is basic logic but it seems to be lost on whoever formed the above argument. So to say that a goldmine is being ignored is belied by the facts: the gold is being mined. Hollywood is giving the "non white" audience seemingly what it wants.

by Anonymousreply 179February 6, 2016 8:47 AM

R144-African Americans DO write stories-but they are stolen by whites! There is a lawsuit against the so called "creators"of Empire that is getting little coverage because white actors worked in collusion to defraud a black writer of his work and gave it to whites to say they wrote it! There are numerous cases like this that get little coverage-that's why it boggles the mind that white screenwriters were hired to tell STraight out of Compton. There are plenty of excellent writers of color if whites didn't work overtime to keep them oppressed! White supremacy is real and the Coen bros willfully obtuse comments reflect that. Of course Oscars mean nothing to them when they have a truckload of them(eye roll)

And regarding Selma-why is AVa DuVernay held to a higher standard of accuracy all of a sudden-because there was no white hero who deigned to 'give' blacks their God given rights as equal human beings? That's why I hate when people talk about so called "affirmative action"as if people of color need a special designation from the Great White Man to tell them they are equal! And I've been on movie sets and comporate settings and see movies and television-there are hardly any people of color to get so riled up about! So this 'affirmative action'or whatever doesn't appear to benefiting anyone but white womens!

by Anonymousreply 180February 6, 2016 9:27 AM

You write what you know, and most white people know other white people. And maybe a fairly niche version of white people. Woody knows upper-class Manhattanites and NYC Jews. He was pretty clueless about San Francisco when he wrote Blue Jasmine. The same is true for many top Indie filmmakers, like PTA, who knows white LA, or Wes Anderson, who has this storybook, twee, white upper-class, highly stylized world, or Richard Linklater, who understands artistic white types in Austin Texas. I feel like so many filmmakers struggle to even get everyday white middle-class Americans right, and mostly fail completely with working-class whites, or those who are flat out poor, let alone Blacks, Hispanics, or Asians. Hell, they still can't convincingly write white ethnics. Very few men of any color can successfully write women, and mostly write female characters that are their sexual fantasy, rather than someone who has lived in this world. And I don't need to tell anyone here that if heterosexuals bother to write for gays or lesbians at all, they usually don't know what the hell they're doing. Forcing white indie directors to work out of their comfort zone probably isn't a viable strategy for promoting a fairer representation of modern America, and probably won't satisfy people looking to see their world portrayed accurately on a big screen. That's why there needs to be more writers, directors and producers who are racially, sexually and gender diverse. I think we're actually starting to see mainstream Hollywood movies with colorblind casting, but that's because those movies don't feature fully dimensional characters, anyway, so it really doesn't matter who plays the guy who is saving someone from terrorists/kidnappers/superhero villains/alien invaders. Quality movies are now being made by small time filmmakers with smaller budgets, and those writers and directors simply seem too limited in their scope to write beyond their own sphere.

by Anonymousreply 181February 6, 2016 9:37 AM

[quote]And regarding Selma-why is AVa DuVernay held to a higher standard of accuracy all of a sudden-because there was no white hero who deigned to 'give' blacks their God given rights as equal human beings?

She's not held to a higher standard, she's being held to a reasonable standard when it comes to rewriting history. The extent to which LBJ's real life accomplishments were completely rewritten and denied in a historical film is immoral when the film in question is largely taken to be historically accurate. It's extremely disingenuous of her to say that the films i s "not a documentary" and she's not a historian but a storyteller. If she had to alter the facts to make MLK more sympathetic and LBJ less so, what does that say about her opinion of those people in real life and their actual accomplishments? A good storyteller would know that the way things played out in real life and the main players' accomplishments is a great story that needs no embellishments or falsehoods. It was a hatchet job and the work of a poor storyteller and this affected her chances at the Oscars.

by Anonymousreply 182February 6, 2016 9:55 AM

[quote]There is a lawsuit against the so called "creators"of Empire that is getting little coverage because white actors worked in collusion to defraud a black writer of his work and gave it to whites to say they wrote it!

It's probably not getting much coverage because the accusation is embarrassingly flimsy. Just a thought...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 183February 6, 2016 10:05 AM

[quote]the Great White Man to tell them they are equal!

Another self-aggrandizing white person patronizing black people and casting them as victims.

by Anonymousreply 184February 6, 2016 10:07 AM

Also, r180, if you want to argue that "white supremacy is real" you might not want to use Empire, with its almost entirely black cast playing rich, successful intelligent characters, as an example. Good God, how thick??

by Anonymousreply 185February 6, 2016 10:15 AM

Maybe the black troll on here will invest his money in a black film or a black owned business and see how well it does.

Prove the racist "white supremacists" wrong, lil' buddy.

by Anonymousreply 186February 6, 2016 10:43 AM

Wrong lawsuit,r183-but good try at diversion. Like I said,Ron Neyt was taken as a joke,I'm referring to a different one. They can't make fun if the new lawsuit because it's based on FACTS. And it's funny,TMZ has a running "joke" of all the lawsuits against Empire except this one. Only Bossip has covered it and even they avoided the juicy parts. The new lawsuit explains why season two is such a mess...

by Anonymousreply 187February 6, 2016 12:07 PM

It's pretty rough -- most in the profitable movie-buying world don't care about black people. The Latino world has its own film industry making movies for themselves, as does the Asian and Middle Eastern world. It is only the US and Britain that is trying (badly) to show diversity.

by Anonymousreply 188February 6, 2016 12:31 PM

r187 Please tell me you're not referring to the lawsuit by the writer who claims they ripped off his screenplay titled... wait for it... THE SUMMIT OF BEAUTY OF LOVE!!??

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 189February 6, 2016 1:00 PM

[quote]Du Vernay's bullshit historical revisionism

As I said at the time, every Hollywood film about an historical event contains revisionism, but almost no one loses their damn minds over it unless they have an agenda. All the but-I'm-not-a-racist racists said that historical revisionism cost SELMA its Oscar chances, but the same kind of revisionism didn't cost UNBROKEN or THE KING'S SPEECH or AMERICAN SNIPER their Oscars.

If historical revisionism cost SELMA its chances, that's because SELMA was being held to a higher standard than other films are.

by Anonymousreply 190February 6, 2016 1:32 PM

It isn't always about whites feeling superior or racist. Mostly people write about what they know. I mean is it really that difficult to understand. If I was a screenwriter I would write about white characters because that is within my experience. Don't think many black writers would write about whites either. I agree with the poster who said black people should be pushing their own material instead of always crying 'racist' at every opportunity.

by Anonymousreply 191February 6, 2016 1:43 PM

r190 THE KING'S SPEECH is about the personal struggle of the King, so the inaccuracies and artistic licenses taken with the historical record are well within ethical limits. SELMA is about the civil rights movement itself and purports to tell the broader story, while taking huge liberties with the truth, erasing LBJ's principled role in that movement and clouding the truth about MLK's incredible achievements. It's a hatchet job and the work of a poor storyteller. There's no parallel between the two.

by Anonymousreply 192February 6, 2016 1:51 PM

Black people DO push their own material, but no one wants to make "black" films.

All of you saying "just go make your own films and leave us alone" do realize that you're relegating non-white films to low- or no-budget productions which will get no release to speak of, no traction, no awards, and therefore won't actually DO anything to increase the visibility of non-white actors and crew, right?

Big studios are often behind indie projects. Would it really hurt studios' bottom line to increase the number of non-white characters in these movies? Something like 10-20 of these indies are released every week, and I see enough of them to know that there are tons of characters who could be any race or gender or sexuality because that aspect of their lives doesn't matter. The problem is that these characters almost always default to straight and white, unless there's something stereotypical like maid or gay best friend.

Economically, I can't see that it would hurt even smaller studios one bit to expand casting choices. For larger studios, we've already shown that plenty of A-list movies with diverse casts are successful.

by Anonymousreply 193February 6, 2016 2:05 PM

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 194February 6, 2016 3:27 PM

No idea if Muriel reads these threads, but if so: with the Independent links, maybe you could disable the link and not delete the DLer's content? I don't want to go to the Independent any more than you do, but I'd like to have heard R194's thoughts.

by Anonymousreply 195February 6, 2016 3:33 PM

When black civil rights leaders have to come forward to complain about Du Vernay's historical revisionism, you gotta a problem.

Du Vernay is insufferably arrogant and condescending. The black female equivalent of Matt Damon.

Selma got an undeserved Oscar nom for Best Picture R190 but what Oscars did Unbroken and American Sniper win? Zero.

by Anonymousreply 196February 6, 2016 3:37 PM

Well,here's a more 'reputable link-and please-you can't censor the truth!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 197February 6, 2016 3:47 PM

[quote]what Oscars did Unbroken and American Sniper win? Zero.

I don't know why everyone around here thinks that if something was nominated but didn't win, it's as though it was never nominated at all.

by Anonymousreply 198February 6, 2016 4:19 PM

In Hollywood, you only get black listed for bashing Jews, or scaring them in some way.

by Anonymousreply 199February 6, 2016 4:20 PM

It seems to be that the black community's real issue with the movie industry is that they want white people to watch them and validate them but at the same time, they want to overcome white people and validate themselves. So, when either happens, it's never enough. You get thousands of white people on twitter tweeting out about the latest slave movie and about the important of diversity and black people think they are being objectified for the white gaze. You get a movie made with all black production and black people resent that the movie doesn't find a white market. Seriously, the bottom line is, there is validation in being victimized and it gives people enormous self worth to be the righteous crusader.

by Anonymousreply 200February 6, 2016 4:24 PM

Forget black/white, the real elephant in the room is that Jews are WAY over represented in all areas of entertainment and media. They shamelessly "discover" (see link), mentor, groom and promote their own to an outrageous degree and make no apologies for it. If you're a member of the tribe, you've got a foot in the door---period. Doesn't matter if you're ugly or untalented. Their stories get green lit because TPTB are also Jewish. How many more movies do we need to see about the Holocaust? It's even worse on Broadway. Try to see a play or musical that doesn't throw out a line or two of Jewish humor pandering to all the middle aged, NYC yentas in the audience. No one else gets it, or cares.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 201February 6, 2016 4:30 PM

Why shouldn't a movie with all-black production have a white audience? All-white productions have black, Asian and Latino audiences. Hell, most of this thread has been about the Asian audiences for white movies. And white audiences have been watching all-Asian productions (martial arts movies, Wong Kar-wai films, etc.) for decades.

It just seems so weird to me to see someone say that an all-black production means no one but blacks will want to watch it. Why?

by Anonymousreply 202February 6, 2016 4:31 PM

The only reason so many white people tuned in "Roots" was because half the country was snowed in and there was nothing else on TV.

It's an American attitude not against blacks, per se, but a preference for seeing themselves, or people they believe to be like themselves, on TV.

If you notice, ethnic movies are slanted towards what is similar between cultures not their differences.

by Anonymousreply 203February 6, 2016 4:36 PM

@r202

Good point, I'm white but watch black majority movies for the same reason I watch white majority movies. I just want to be entertained dammit! I remember identifying with characters that were Asian, Hispanic, black, you name it. It was not long ago I read that Denzel Washington was the most popular actor in the US. Not to mention Will Smith having been the most bankable star for years. I think some people underestimate white people on these issues. We want to watch "black" movies too!

by Anonymousreply 204February 6, 2016 6:04 PM

Why can't these assholes just flat-out say they don't want minorities in their movies? It's obvious, so just fucking come out and say it.

by Anonymousreply 205February 6, 2016 6:05 PM

They seem like dicks.Never seen their movies in the past so I definitely won't start with "Fail Cesar"

by Anonymousreply 206February 6, 2016 6:21 PM

R203 OMG you fucking nazi! go back to stormfront and suck off hitler's sparrow cock you dimwit progeny!

by Anonymousreply 207February 6, 2016 6:56 PM

Poor r207 -- that is all he's got.

by Anonymousreply 208February 6, 2016 6:57 PM

[quote]They seem like dicks.Never seen their movies in the past so I definitely won't start with "Fail Cesar"

I'm sure they'll be mortified, r206.

by Anonymousreply 209February 6, 2016 7:00 PM

Based on R181’s inability or unwillingness to break his writing into readable paragraphs, what class do you think he is, gentle reader? Lower class, never learned? Upper class, doesn’t give a fuck if anyone reads him? Which could it be?

by Anonymousreply 210February 6, 2016 7:36 PM

[quote] The new lawsuit explains why season two is such a mess...

How so, R187?

by Anonymousreply 211February 6, 2016 7:38 PM

A rather interesting perspective for those who seem to be focused on the "historical inaccuracies" of Selma.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 212February 6, 2016 10:01 PM

Isn't Channing Tatum black?

by Anonymousreply 213February 6, 2016 10:20 PM

Didn't Jamie Foxx win for Ray recently? Didn't Lupita win recently? Didn't a black woman, Monique, win for Precious?

Is everyone forgetting about these wins and successful films?

Jada P. Smith is a skank and dumb. How did she get under everyone's skin?

by Anonymousreply 214February 6, 2016 10:26 PM

R212 Eric Goldman wasn't there. Julian Bond, Andrew Young, Joe Califano, Bill Moyers were.

by Anonymousreply 215February 6, 2016 10:30 PM

R204, then you and I are different and my preference doesn't make me racist. I'll give you an example.

Years ago there was a UK made movie called Death at a Funeral. I loved it. I thought it was the funniest thing. A few years after it came out, the US did a version with a mainly black cast. I was looked forward to seeing a different take on one of my favorite movies. I absolutely hated it and it had nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin. I didn't get the humor and dialog, which was changed to appeal to AAs.

I've seen AA standup comedians, and aside from a few, I don't like the humor. I can't relate to the humor or the experiences.

Am I pissed that POC were cast as the leads in the Star Wars...fuck no. Star Wars was a big part of my childhood. It is something I can relate to and as long as the cast gels, I don't give a fuck what the color of anyone's skin is. (FYI: Star Wars did not do as well as expected in Asia and China...I'll leave it to you to figure out why).

To the poster talking about movie bugets...Movies with mainly AA casts are made and they do quite well... at the North American box office only. The market for these films are limited mainly to the US and sometimes have a small international run. This main reason you don't see studios throwing big budgets at these films is their profit potential is very limited. So, why give someone a $200 million budget if the film will gross only $200 million?

by Anonymousreply 216February 6, 2016 10:59 PM

R175, I'm hardly a white supremist and by calling me one only shows just how weak your argument really is that you need to resort to vile name calling. If pointing out the lumping all ethnicities into one basket doesn't work makes me a white supremist then I suggest you get out in the world and meet actual white supremists.

r170/R175, I think R178 expands quite well on my reasoning in post R165 about why lumping ethnicities together is flawed.

The facts are on my side, not yours, and I was able to back my arguments up with numbers; you backed up your argument with a highly flawed OPINION PIECE from the WP blog site.

If you want to fix the world then stop looking at it as you want it to be but rather how it really is. You can't fix fantasy.

by Anonymousreply 217February 6, 2016 11:13 PM

THANK you, R25; SO nice to see someone with half a brain on this thread! You should be cloned, and all of you flown to the Oscars!!

by Anonymousreply 218February 6, 2016 11:25 PM

I wish someone would point the proverbial gun at some n---er actor/actress's head and say, OK: you can (A) have a career doing a bunch of black-themed, written, directed, acted, crewed films - low-budgets, smaller audiences to see, low salary...

OR

(B) you can have a career doing films that are PRIMARILY white-written, directed, co-stars, etc.: And they'll all be blockbusters, and you'll make tons of money!

LOVE to know which career path they'd pick.

F---ing hypocrites, whiners.

by Anonymousreply 219February 6, 2016 11:30 PM

And at some point, to riff on Gertrude Stein:

A minority is a minority is a minority.

by Anonymousreply 220February 6, 2016 11:33 PM

Ever hear Todd Haynes complain about how he isn't accepted as a gay man in Hollywood? John Cameron Mitchell? Tons more. No, they make the movies they want to make and sometimes they are heavy on the gay themes and sometimes they are not. But they either make money or buy respect critically and that's what matters.

No need to beat a dead horse but "Selma"'s lack of Oscar power was nobody's fault but that of the people behind it. A non-union screenplay (in 2015, for Chrissakes, who has a non-union screenplay when its so easy to become a signatory?), screeners sent out at the 11th hour, a director who talks way too much to the press about the problems she is having, and a major player in Oprah with enough experience to have known how the game was played -- and should have played it. Right or wrong, Harvey gets Oscar buzz and it don't come cheap.

by Anonymousreply 221February 6, 2016 11:52 PM

The "diversity" advocates need to come to terms with the fact that the money men in Hollywood know what they're doing. They're not going to put blacks in lead roles in movies just for the sake of "diversity" and lose millions of dollars per film as a result.

Do you think that a black "Batman" movie would have made as much money worldwide as a white "Batman" movie?

Would you invest your own money in something that stood to lose money just to appease a bunch of powerless "diversity" complainers?

by Anonymousreply 222February 7, 2016 12:21 AM

[quote]Do you think that a black "Batman" movie would have made as much money worldwide as a white "Batman" movie?

Look at the backlash against the black star wars guy in the US.

by Anonymousreply 223February 7, 2016 12:23 AM

The new movie has a C- audience score. At least 3 flops in a row for gay George: Monuments Men, the Disney film and now this. Sad.

by Anonymousreply 224February 7, 2016 12:29 AM

'New James Bond will NOT be black' says Pierce Brosnan :

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 225February 7, 2016 12:30 AM

R223, just look,at the backlash against the casting of Michael Jordan in the last Fantastic Four movie. There was a lot to complain about with that movie and the casting of Michael Jordan was the least thing that was wrong with the movie

by Anonymousreply 226February 7, 2016 12:36 AM

The studio hasn't officially confirmed it yet, but a couple of the trades seem pretty sure that Idris Elba is going to be playing Roland in the Dark Tower series opposite McConaughey as the Man in Black. If so, that is potentially the biggest instance of colorblind casting in history. Plenty of obsessed Stephen King fans are going to go berserk if Roland doesn't look like the guy King described, but King has given his blessing and one of the trades reported McConaughey only agreed if Elba is cast opposite him.

There's a thread on here about it. Somewhere.

by Anonymousreply 227February 7, 2016 1:07 AM

R142, Brokeback was not a studio movie. Bill Pohlad started River Road Entertainment to finance it! Focus Pictures bought it (a specialty distributor, targeted at cinephiles then.) No doubt due to Schamus and Lee's long standing relationship.

Brokeback was unexpected, a breakout. For a current release, its old fashioned trysts in secret would be diluted by TV's gays and gay sex. After marriage equality, don't count on backward-looking stories whip up a big cultural frenzy (Danish Girl? Stonewall? Carol?), unless a story has a more immediate link to the present (eg. NWA/Compton to ongoing police brutality, black poverty. Fraus don't care to see their grandmas suffer, unless they still live it, or it's a fantasy fulfillment like 50 Shades.)

If studios didn't rush to start their "gay units", as they set up "faith units" in reponse to the ridiculous boxoffice by Mel Gibon's Passion - we have to ask if studios had assured tracking of frau demographics, to develop and invest in more gay pictures. (LGBT claiming they'll five-peat theatrical viewings, just don't cut it. Where was this crowd for the LGBT crop of titles this year? Or are gays not too far from fraus: just give them nearly Harlequin weepies about attractive young actors having affairs and upset over missed opportunities?)

What about the logistics? How long did Brokeback take in the writing stage, development and casting? Danish Girl and Carol respectively took nearly 10 and over 10 years. Is there a clear-cut relationship between their quality (subjective) and cultural resonance (limited, perfunctory feeback?)

As the IMDB links given before, we're never short on gay indies and foreign films made at less than 5 million. That's horror, exploitation genre, cheaply made faith movies, indies. What people mean by "great", barring the subjective, is the size of cultural dialogue where gay desire meshes with straight (frau or Black Swan-for-male) gaze, gay regret meets straight guilt (which is still not as galvanizing a force of "white guilt" in an eternal headlock with black Americans and their history sharing this same land.)

Otherwise, The Imitation Game both outgrossed Brokeback and features a gay lead character.

by Anonymousreply 228February 7, 2016 2:09 AM

I happen to agree with him. How many white actors are in black films? Not many. Why? Because they're about Black people and their experiences. The problem is not so much with casting as it is with storytelling.

by Anonymousreply 229February 7, 2016 4:05 AM

R229 there's also the issue of African Americans (foreign blacks don't seem to have this issue) who complain when other blacks "act white" which logically they would do in a largely white film which hopes to have crossover appeal.

by Anonymousreply 230February 7, 2016 5:18 AM

I love this so called argument that no one will pay to see people of color in movies oversees-hogwash!! From what I see,there is not a race in this earth that has not been touched by the white man. Instagram and YouTube are full of interracial couples-the most popular are white man/black woman couples. Nearly all the English actors of color working in america are biracial and they didn't create themselves so obviously plenty of whites find black people attractive-sexually speaking. But it's always 'do as I say,not as I do'with bigots and it plays into white supremacy to believe that that the white skin that oppresses is also the most desired! How whack is that! But unfortunately Asians and others have bought into that way if thinking...

And how can people of color gain an international audience-or any for that matter-if they are never cast? An actress of Viola Davis' talent should be getting major roles like her peers(julia,Julianne,etc)but instead television is only option for steady work(and the racists will and say she should be grateful!)

I have this conversation many times with friends about how there are so many catogories for white actors:they have the A-listers,the young female and male ingenues,their comedians,the television and broadway actors,it goes on. But when it comes to black actors,there's usually room for exactly ONE per decade-and we can all name theme for black women there was Dorothy dandridge in the 50's;Diane Carroll in the 60's,Cicely Tyson in the 70's,Whoopi Goldberg in the 80's,Angela Bassett in the 90's,Halle Berry in the 00's and Viola in this decade! And for the men it's the same. And whites have the nerve about blacks 'complaining'? And now there's competition from other people of color from overseas for table crumbs! It's so insidious and puzzling this bizarre outrage from whites when they have so many choices. They never have to sit through a movie,television show or broadway or flip through a magazine because they are Always represented! "The White Gaze" only sees it's self and everyone else are 'complainers'or suffering from a 'victim'mentality. Of course the Coen brothers are pissed-no on wanted to be called out for how obviously myopic they are in their film casting-their body of work speaks for itself.

Shonda Rhimes has her detractors but at least she casts the world as it really is-multicultural with all manner of people interacting with each other on a daily basis-not an alternate universe where only pale folks exists.

by Anonymousreply 231February 7, 2016 9:22 AM

[quote]Of course the Coen brothers are pissed-no on wanted to be called out for how obviously myopic they are in their film casting-their body of work speaks for itself.

Most actors of any race would give their right arm to be cast in a Coen brothers film. Being asked by one non-entity a stupid question about the issue, which they answered with perfect logic is hardly them being "pissed". The problem isn't black people "suffering from a victim mentality" it's middle class white people like you puffing your ego up by painting black people as victims for your own self-aggrandizement. Your just a variation on the white oppressor you try to convince yourself you're arguing against.

[quote]I have this conversation many times with friends about how there are so many catogories for white actors:they have the A-listers,the young female and male ingenues,their comedians,the television and broadway actors,it goes on.

Wow, you and your friends must be the life of the party. Those aren't separate categories of actors. An "A-Lister" is referred to as such because of their success at the box office. There are black "A-Listers". The comedians??? Are you suggesting there aren't any popular black comedians?! The last I heard, one was hosting the #OhSoWhiteOscars in a few weeks time. And in what Universe is your category of "television and broadway actors" an exclusively white category!?

by Anonymousreply 232February 7, 2016 9:56 AM

[quote]And how can people of color gain an international audience-or any for that matter-if they are never cast?

According to the brain trust here on DL, she should go do movies with her own kind, i.e. with black folks. Of course, white people don't want to see "black" films and they're not as good as "white" films anyway, and don't deserve nominations, let alone awards. That's just the way the world is, you can't change it, there are stats to prove that this is the natural order of things, so why bother even talking about it?

Besides, if black people got awards that would be pandering to the REAL racists, who are black folks, of course, not white folks who know what real art is. Real art transcends race and gender so it doesn't matter who gets cast anyway.

by Anonymousreply 233February 7, 2016 11:18 AM

[quote]Why are Blacks so fucking dependent on crumbs from Whitey? Get your shit together, take POWER and create your own great art. The White man is NEVER going to please you. You already know that, so do it yourself.

Obviously R233 missed the above in R78's post.

by Anonymousreply 234February 7, 2016 11:29 AM

Let us weep openly for the black man.!

by Anonymousreply 235February 7, 2016 11:30 AM

Gay men - gay or white- tend to be more into the arts and are more literate, hence the THOUSANDS of theater posts. So there are more gay filmd and characters. Straight black men are not as into it.

by Anonymousreply 236February 7, 2016 12:19 PM

r233, yes, you completely missed the fucking point.

Putting statistics aside...how do you explain China eliminating all POC from the Star Wars promotional material? The fact that the movie under preformed in Asian markets? The fact that the Sony email hack revealed that movie executivies are aware that movies with an AA lead don't perform as well internationally? The fact that movies with a mainly AA cast and content will play in North America, and if lucky will enjoy a LIMITED international run but will not open in Asia and China?

Nobody Is saying that people shouldn't be having a conversation about the diversity issue. But what I AM saying is have the RIGHT conversation". And having no AA Oscar nominees over the last two years (when there is good reason why certain films/actors didn't get nominated) is NOT THE RIGHT CONVERSATION to have. You are also ignoring and invalidating the wins of those AA actors who have won or were nominated.

by Anonymousreply 237February 7, 2016 6:24 PM

God R231 is a whiny pathetic loser. Hey...here's a thought. Instead of bitching about the fact that white writers, directors, producers, financiers and studio heads don't do enough for black people...how about black people do something for themselves?

Once again, there is enough money, talent and power in the African American community to make whatever films they want. So why aren't those films being made? Why do they need Hollywood to do it for them? Hollywood to pay for it? Compare this to the history of blaxploitation films. Or of rap music. When artists did their shit and then were embraced by the mainstream.

Are painters supposed to wait to paint until they have a gallery showing? Are novelists only supposed to write once they get a publishing deal? Are actors and playwrights and other theatre artists supposed to spend their lives hoping to play on Broadway?

It's not 1940 anymore. If African Americans don't have the film history that they want, they have only themselves to blame.

by Anonymousreply 238February 7, 2016 7:32 PM

Well written r238

by Anonymousreply 239February 7, 2016 7:46 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!