Killing a Film Softly

I can't express my disappointment I experienced this Friday when previewing the movie listings in the Friday Atlanta Journal Constitution. (Yes, I still prefer to look at the movie listings in the Friday paper, rather than browsing online. When you have the entire smorgasbord of options in front of you and you can see the entire landscape, some things stand out.)



My disappointment stemmed from the location where the new film I.O.U.S.A. opened in Atlanta: the Regal Cinemas Hollywood 24.

Roadside Attractions decision to open a specialty documentary film at a suburban multi-plex is paramount to sending a prisoner to Siberia. In fairness, for the masses headed home to their suburban gated communities north of Atlanta, bypassing the Hollywood 24 on the shoulder of 85, the film will be a roadside Attraction.

When opening a specialty film theatrcially, location is one of the most significant factors for success, along with marketing, timing, and critical review. (The quality of the film is often secondary--I've seen countless great films--like Mondovino--tank at the box office, while mediocre films--like Bottle Schlock--catch on.



We've seen this elsewhere this summer:
Danny McBride's Foot Fist Way opened on a single screen in the Atlanta market--way the hell out in Stonecrest, in a multiplex over 40 minutes from Atlanta proper. Paramount Vantage held the theatrical release of this film for like 2 years...and then dumped it in the suburbs, over a month and a half before Danny McBride was positioned to break big.



Meanwhile, now that we're headed into September, Danny McBride's stock has risen! He's featured in two of this summer's hottest comedies: Tropic Thunder and Pineapple Express, and audiences are likely asking themselves, where can I see more of his work? Had Paramount Vantage held the release a few more months, they might have been positioned for a legitimate sleeper hit. Heck, had Paramount Vantage employed better strategy, the company itself might have survived...

Dan's been brave enough to see such specialty films as Midnight Meat Train and Uwe Boll's Postal upon their theatricial openings in banjo-strumming locales like Fayetteville and Riverdale.



The state of independent releasing is precarious. Small films need every possible advantage to succeed in a crowded, competitive marketplace.

When a distributor decides to open a film in Siberia, they doom the picture to failure.

There are reasons distributors dump a film:
1) From a desk in New York, one screen is as good as another. Getting the film on-screen is the thing. More often than not, such decisions show a distributor's ignorance about a specific market. But this is simply not true. All screens are not equal. Audiences are creatures of habit--and art house audiences have come to expect art house films at specific venues. The only time specialty films can perform in an unconventional screen is when the film crosses a tipping point and expands wide (Juno, March of the Penguins...etc) or when a film (like Passion of the Christ, the Tyler Perry canon) is positioned to reach a critical mass outside the art house hub.

2) They really don't care: Why would a distributor would choose to dump a film on purpose? They are contractually obligated to open the film on a certain number of screens, and by opening (in Siberia) they are honoring their obligation.



3) There just isn't any room on the desirable screens: In Atlanta, the Landmark Theatre is holding "art films" like Dark Knight, Mamma Mia!, Pineapple Express and Tropic Thunder (I get it, they have to pay the bills, too!), and meanwhile, the UA Tara is holding tight to legit powerhouse art product, and doing quite well. I wonder why more companies, when they get squeezed by corporate theatres like Regal, UA and Landmark don't cozy up to independent theatres like The Plaza and Lefont? Seems to me these theatres are the last frontier for true indies.

I.O.U.S.A has been employing an aggressive and interesting marketing strategy. I've encountered the film numerous times on Google ads. They created a national opening event by staging a national town hall meeting (projected on digital screens throughout the country) with Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway; William Niskanen, chairman of the CATO Institute; Bill Novelli, CEO of AARP; Pete Peterson, senior chairman of The Blackstone Group and chairman of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation; and Dave Walker, president & CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and former U.S. Comptroller General. But based on their list of theatrical venues, it looks to me like they've misplayed their hand.



All I know is this: a group of 5 interested film lovers--the film festival staff--opted to see Housebunny on Friday, instead of I.O.U.S.A.

I'm sure we'll see the film eventually--as soon at it's available on Netflix.

It's Not Blackface

The major debate surrounding Tropic Thunder concerns the use of the word "retard." What's been consistently mentioned by many folks is the surprise that Downey Jr.'s performance hasn't raised the collective ire of Black folks, or just people in general, across the nation. (I did find a few protests, but they're mostly minor.) In the minds of many, since Downey's role has been so integral to the marketing and plays so much more prominent role in the film's story, it would have been the likely target for blowback. Here's an example from Spoutblog:

Tropic Thunder is taking heavy fire, not for Robert Downey Jr.’s blackface performance, but rather for Ben Stiller’s spoof movie-within-a-movie, Simple Jack.

What irks me is that there seems to be a general misunderstanding of what is and isn't blackface. While Downey's character has his skin darkened, it's not exaggerated. He's not wearing the characteristic red lip outline or the black charcoal base. Nor is his military uniform even a part of the minstrel/blackface code. Most importantly, the archetype--stereotypical as it is, which is kind of the point--he's portraying doesn't have its roots in the minstrel tradition. As with Ben Stiller's Tugg Speedman playing Simple Jack, the archetype has more to do with actors and the lengths they'll go to for authenticity and to prove themselves as actors. (In Thunder, Speedman dons an awful bowl haircut and buckteeth to play the role of Jack.)

Christain Bale lost 63 lbs for The Machinist, only to pack back on 100 lbs to play Batman. Charlize Theron famously "went ugly" to play the lead in Monster. By most accounts, that she started her career as a model, only added resonance to the move. Actors have and do indeed go to great lengths to disappear into their roles. But, do they have to go so far? Even Orson Welles donned a fake nose for his role in The Long Hot Summer.

This is sliding into another tangent, so let me get back on track.

There's a little movie called The Watermelon Man from 1970. It's about a White man who suddenly wakes up Black. He tries to live his life the same way as he did before the inexplicable transformation, but finds his daily routine interpreted differently by his family, friends, neighbors and co-workers.
To play the role Godfrey Cambridge (another great actor few folks know about) had to wear white makeup. When he turns Black, they simply removed the white makeup. It's not the most convincing effect, but it works enough for the purposes of the movie. Which is the most important thing. Could this movie be told any other way? Especially in 1970?

For the time period, being produced just a scant 6 years after the signing of the Civil Rights act of 1964, the movie wouldn't have been able escape the blackface label if a White actor had taking the role, even with Melvin Van Peebles behind the lens. Let's not forget that Sidney Poitier was still having to answer questions as a Black actor and not as just an actor.

Considering it partially plays on a few stereotypes of white people, could it be called whiteface? Note: I'm not saying that whiteface--if it exists--in anyway has the same negative impact that blackface does. I don't even to look it up to tell you that all 10 actors up for Best Actor noms that year were White*. Or that the top grossing films of the year all featured White leads. Okay, I did look at the grosses for 1970:

1.	Love Story	Paramount	$48,700,000
2.	Airport	Universal	$45,220,000
3.	M*A*S*H	20th Century Fox	$36,720,000

As you can see, this little movie did no damage. Nor did White Chicks--although the damage it did to the Wayans brothers' rep is probably more measurable. Why Keenen? Why?

It's now 2008. Does the term blackface have the same meaning? It's a question that Spike Lee tackled in 2000 with Bamboozled. And I think a look at this montage...




...from the movie reinforces for me at least, that Downey Jr. is not in, or doing, blackface. Watch for a key scene near the end--of Tropic and not this youtube clip--as Downey's Kirk Lazarus "reemerges" for further proof about what the film's poking fun at.

To say otherwise totally undermines the negative role real blackface had on Black actors, Hollywood, America's perceptions of Black people and Black folk's perceptions of themselves. Almost any Black person of a certain age can tell you at least one story about being told what to do or not do around White people, lest their actions reinforce particular stereotypes about Black folks.

Blackface spawned 150 years of racist films, radio programs, tv shows, stage plays and products. Blackface was not just a cultural phenomenon, it was an entire industry.

*Actually, James Earl Jones was nominated for Best Actor for The Great White Hope. Foot in mouth? Maybe a toe, but not a full foot. :-) Charles

Is Tropic Thunder Insenstive?

As you may have read, there's been some brouhaha about Tropic Thunder's fake movie Simple Jack. Here's a quick recap.

In Tropic Thunder Ben Stiller plays action star Tugg Speedman. In a bid to earn an Oscar nom and to elevate his image, Speedman stars in Simple Jack, a film whose poster's tag line reads "Once Upon a Time...There Was A Retard." According to Access Hollywood, the film was a critical and box office flop. In Thunder, Kirk Lazarus, played by Robert Downey Jr., explains to Speedman that if he wanted to win an Oscar, he should have never gone full retard.

The objections that have risen concern the film's use of the word "retard." Several groups who work with the disabled find the use of the word offensive. In response, DreamWorks and Paramount pulled down the site for the fictional Simple Jack, but have left the film itself untouched.

That the movie is untouched isn't a surprise. The film sports a $90 million plus budget and more so than the other fictional movies mentioned in the film, Simple Jack is so integral to the Tropic's plot, that a good 1/3rd of the film would have to be excised to remove all references.

If you visit Chud or Aintitcool, you'll find most folks from that side falling into the free speech, "let the movie be" camp. While if you visit Patricia Bauer's Blog, you'll find an example of Disability groups and proponents who are actively protesting the movie.

While it's easy to jump on the free speech wagon, what few of those folks acknowledge is that there are very few representations of those with disabilities on screen. Small or Large. It's true that as a satire of Hollywood, Thunder's take on Oscar bait films is pretty accurate--and fair. Yet, when it's a near lonely representation of those with disabilities, the film's meta-elements carry an extra weight of responsbility, unintended or not.

Purely as a comedy, Amos and Andy is funny. However, when the only other show featuring an African American in the lead is The Beulah Show, Amos and Andy runs into the same issues that Thunder does. Diahann Carroll, who starred in the ground breaking TV show Julia--the first TV show to feature an African American female lead who wasn't a domestic, once mentioned that she snuck off to watch Amos and Andy against her family's wishes. She thought the show was hilarious, but she didn't understand the impact the show had till she herself was on TV on a weekly basis. For the majority of Americans in the 1950s, the only African Americans who would be in their home on a regular basis would literally have been on their television. And believe it or not, for many people, they would have taken a show like that for face value.

Fast forward. Why hasn't there been a backlash about Downey in blackface? Well, because of Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Andre Baugher, etc. Although there is still a dearth of quality roles for African American actors--especially women--the industry has made significant enough strides in the last 30 years that Downey's role is possible. Folks can more comfortably laugh when the world's largest film star is Black, when one of TV's biggest hits is run by an African American women, and when, on the whole, you can name at least a dozen African American actors who are critically acclaimed, award winning, recognizable and are active.

However, it also has to be said that Downey's character in Thunder isn't Amos or Andy. Downey isn't wearing blackface in the minstrel tradition. He's not scheming someone, or acting like a buffoon. Even while staying in character, Downey's Lazarus is one of the more level headed characters.

The character of Simple Jack is the distillation of all the worse attributes that stigmatize those who are mentally disabled. He stutters, he has bucked teeth, he uses overly simplistic phrasing and he demonstrates an extreme lack of cognitive judgment. All punctuated by a bowl haircut and outfit that make him look like a man in Raggedy Andy drag. By all definitions, he could be considered the mentally disabled equivalent of a minstrel character. Which is the point of the film. And truth be told, the movie's point--that actors do take roles like Jack in a bid to earn awards--wouldn't have been made if Stiller had toned down the performance.

It reminds me of this scene from the show Extras:



One last point. Much of what Dave Chappelle did on The Chappelle Show was a brilliant deconstruction of race in America. His "When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong" was probably the best commentary on why the concept of "Keeping it Real" is asinine. However, when he realized that America as a whole couldn't see past the joke, did he keep going--using a $50 Million payday as a convenient out? Or did he take his social responsibilities seriously? Chappelle famously said this when a crowd kept yelling "I'm Rick James, Bitch!" at one of his shows:

You know why my show is good? Because the network officials say you're not smart enough to get what I'm doing, and every day I fight for you. I tell them how smart you are. Turns out, I was wrong. You people are stupid.

And if you think Chappelle's reaction was out of bounds, consider the below pic from an ad featuring a the 2008 Spanish men's basketball team. Or, consider the Don Imus blow up that occurred after Chappelle was off the air. And how about these students who, in blackface, and for fun, reenacted the Jena 6 assault.


There are times when we as a society and world buy into our own hype. And that's a dangerous trap. Just because we may no longer hide those with disabilities en masse in special homes, out of public view, does that mean that we've truly embraced and integrated those with disabilities into our everyday lives. Just as America's making The Chappelle Show a hit meant that viewers grasped all the subtle and not so subtle commentary Chappelle was trying to make.

I'm not saying that what Stiller and crew did is wrong. Personally, I think the movie is one of the funniest films of the Summer. And much like Mel Brook's Blazing Saddles or this (warning: includes strong racial language) famous scene from The Jerk, the film's satirical jabs only have punch if they are subversive.

However, until there's a time when characters with disabilities, physical or mental, are standard characters on dramas and comedies, we can expect more folks to bristle at moments like Simple Jack. That's their right and should be understandable. What folks over at Chud and Aintitcool should be advocating for are more roles for disabled actors and characters.

And folks on the other side should keep in mind that the end of the Blaxplotation era didn't usher in a new age of enlightened and well rounded black characters. That took another 20 years. Just as it was nearly 20 years between the debut of Beluah in 1950 and Julia in 1968. So be careful what you ask for, you may just get it. Instead of being included, even negatively, Hollywood may just ignore you all together.

Tom Who?! Tom Cruise.......THAT'S who!!

A few of us from the office saw a sneak screening of Tropic Thunder last night and loved it. I was really looking forward to seeing Robert Downey Jr. in blackface--who else could successfully pull that off? As we were waiting for the movie to start, Charles leaned over and told me that Tom Cruise was supposed to have a cameo appearance in the film. What? My immediate thought was "Why?" The movie started and Robert Downey Jr. was hilarious, just as I expected. What I didn't expect was how incredibly funny Tom Cruise was going to be. He not only has a cameo, but he practically steals the movie with a few short scenes. He plays a great character--an emotionally unstable yet ruthless studio boss. This could definitely be a come-back role for him. More cameos like this, please, Tom!