Fade In Magazine Talks Racism in Hollywood

by Latoya Peterson

Arturo sent me an email a few days ago, asking me to add this to the links. But when I looked at the source material, I knew I had to do a post.

In an article called Minority Report: Hollywood’s Dirty Little Secret, Fade In Magazine pulls anonymous quotes from professionals working in the film industry about their jobs. Fifty percent of Fade In’s readers are in the industry and from what I can tell, the magazine appears have the qualities of both a mainstream glossy magazine and a trade magazine. The mag has been in publication since 1994, so it appears to be credible. And if they are credible, and all the sources they quote are who they say they are, it is one of the most illuminating piece I’ve ever read on racism in Hollywood.

In addition to the graphic above, which accompanied the article, check out some of the major quotes:

Screenwriter “Hollywood’s not liberal. That is such an oxymoron; such a joke. There are so many things… I don’t even know where to begin, because it’s so pinned up, because you have to control it. One of the things that Hollywood, along with society, has successfully done is blame the victim. You’re the victim of racism, but they blame you if you say anything. You will never be able to get behind a computer again in your life.

“Hollywood is anything but liberal. I call them liberal bigots. Hollywood is filled with liberal bigots, and they use the thing of being liberal as a reason for being bigoted, for if they’d listen to themselves talk, and listen to their friends talk, they would find that they tell way too many black jokes, ethnic jokes.”

Screenwriter “I wrote a very celebrated movie. I busted my ass, worked hard. I would meet with the director from nine o’clock in the morning – to talk, not to write – until about twelve or one o’clock in the morning. Now, it took that long, because he was on the phone, all of the time, chitchatting with his friends. It should have been a shorter meeting. Then I would write until two or three o’clock in the morning. I finish the script and do all of this work, and then him and another white guy lie and say they wrote it! And white Hollywood believed them over me. I couldn’t fight it, because if I tried to fight it, if I were to scream racism, I’m done. He did something on the set that pushed me to the point as a man where I could have kicked his ass. Then what would have happened is the owners would have been on me: ‘Violent black writer loses his temper and beats up white director.’ Even though all of Hollywood knows that this guy is a jerk.

“Then I had to go through the whole shame of going to meetings where people were asking me, ‘So did you really write this? Can we see samples of other stuff you did?’ Even though this guy has never written anything that they can point to and go, ‘Oh, well, he’s written this.’ Since then, he hasn’t written anything, but because he was white… He said in the arbitration letter, ‘I didn’t want anybody to know my efforts were being done because I didn’t want to undermine Mr. [name withheld].’ Can you believe that? I literally cried when I read the arbitration letter. So he played the affirmative action card, [claiming] that I was an affirmative action writer. There are whites in this town who still to this day believe that this white man [wrote the script].”

Screenwriter “I went to a meeting at Warner Bros., with a producer and a director and an exec. I’m sitting there, and I’m a black writer going to write about this black guy. I won’t say what he did, because that’d give away who it was. So before the meeting started, the three white guys started telling towelhead jokes: ‘This towelhead this, this towelhead that.’ And I’m sitting there listening to them tell these towelhead jokes. The Warner Bros. exec started it, and then the producer and this director chimed in on it. I couldn’t believe this was taking place. I didn’t say a word; you know I’m not going to say an N-word joke or tell a towelhead joke because I’m next. So I’m listening to this. Then, afterwards, they then start talking about this black project, which I had no interest in pitching, because I thought, ‘You’re some of the most insincere sons of bitches I ever met in my life’ – motherfuckers is the better word. I had another life before I became a writer, and I’d never heard any shit like this before. I probably gave them one of the most insincere pitches I ever gave in my life because I didn’t want to be a part of [anything with] these three assholes. I couldn’t believe they were doing it. It was totally unnecessary.”

Director “An African-American executive was interested in doing a project with an African-American writer and an African-American director. She mentioned the project to her boss. She and her boss proceeded to get on a conference call with the African-American director’s agent. The agent answered the phone with such zest, she began talking prior to letting the agent know that there was somebody else on the phone, and proceeded to talk about a high-profile project at the studio, and then he went into mentioning the African-American project and said, ‘We’re not even worried about nigger films.’ Shortly thereafter, the African-American executive resigned. There’s so much racism going on that we’re just used to it. It’s hard to pick out a moment when you’re not discriminated against.”

Agent “I find that minorities are usually the last hired and the first fired in TV. At the staff level, you’ll try to sell a writer, try to sell a writer, try to sell a writer, and you’ll be told as an agent, ‘Well, if we’re going to hire anyone at that level, we’re going to hire one of the diversity writers.’ So if you’re a young white guy, it’s not happening. Now, do I feel sorry for that young white guy? Well, they’ve ruled Hollywood forever. So, all right, you push, push, push, push. But the diversity writer will wind up working at a deficit most of the time because the other staff will have been hired, and the diversity hire will be the person they bring on much later. So not only do they walk in with a brown or black face, or Asian eyes, so they look different, but when they walk in three weeks later, it’s stamped all over them: You’re brought in because you’re an affirmative-action hire. It becomes a little difficult. Then, when the twenty weeks run out, many of them haven’t had the opportunity to write a script because a staff writer’s job is to provide ideas, and they don’t give a script to that person. So when their twenty weeks are out, they’re let go, and then their resume has one staff job that lasted twenty weeks, and then they can’t get rehired. As opposed to having them write a script and giving them a shot to prove themselves. It’s fucked up.

And check out this fun little bit on gender:

Producer “No female director has ever won an Academy Award. You know why? Because no female director has made a film worthy of it. I don’t feel like it’s a lack of opportunity. I feel like a female director hasn’t proven herself. Directing is hard for anybody who wants to get into it. There aren’t that many women pursuing it. In my film school, there was probably one woman for every ten guys.”

Right – no reason why that could be, is there? Perhaps moments like this?

Producer “I remember when I produced my very first movie. I was sitting in a room with a very famous director and his development staff. I was the only female in the room, and I kept making suggestions to cut different scenes, [like] one too many funerals. And I was completely ignored. Cut to this very famous director. He would say the same exact thing that I had said, not even a minute after I said it. And everyone at the meeting would be like, ‘Oh, yes. Good idea. That’s what we should do!’ It was like I never said it. I was invisible. I don’t know if that was sexism, but it sure felt like it. My opinion didn’t matter. Why was I talking?

And you know someone brought up what Tyler Perry had to go through:

Entertainment Lawyer “Fox Searchlight had Diary of a Mad Black Woman and was in line to produce it before Lionsgate. Searchlight called Perry and told him they had a bunch of changes they wanted. They didn’t get it. Perry told them, ‘Hold on for a second. I’ll be right there…I’ll be right there to pick up all my shit and leave!’ He took all his shit to Lionsgate and said, ‘Here’s my cast. I’m putting in some of my own money. Here’s my script.’ And they were in. That film was predicted to have a $3 million, bottom-of-the-barrel, you-haven’t-got-a-prayer opening; that prediction turned into a $21.7 million opening weekend. On that day, Searchlight called begging Tyler and everyone around the project not to embarrass them and disclose that they’d actually had it and messed it up. They were so embarrassed.”

The entertainment lawyer quoted above also pointed out that Tyler Perry’s business now comprises one third of Lionsgate’s revenue.

And to end, this screenwriter touches on something I’ve been thinking on for a while:

Screenwriter “‘Liberal Hollywood’ is an oxymoron. What do they fear? Revenge. Retaliation. The thing that they fail to realize is that if blacks were going to retaliate, it would have happened well before now. People are comfortable with their own stories. For example, I’m comfortable with a story about a black person, and a black hero, and a black family, and whites are comfortable with stories about themselves. Unfortunately, in their world, there’s not any room for stories about anyone else. They can read a good story about someone else and go, ‘That’s wonderful! But is there an audience for it?’ Because it’s not about them. And that is where they sell the American public short. I do think that whites outside of our industry are curious about other people. They go to zoos. So wouldn’t they go to see a movie about somebody else? It’s cold, but is that not true? They’re not closing up zoos because they’re not about white people. Why wouldn’t we think that whites would go see a movie about a culture different than theirs? Why do you keep making the same movie about yourself over and over again? Your love angst, or whatever your feelings, and what’s happening to you this year, over and over again? That’s why I have my own little thing about certain movies I won’t go see. There’s not a room that you go into when there’s a movie about black people or about any ethnic group where you don’t hear, ‘That’s a hard movie to sell.’ ‘That’s going to be tough.’

(Image Credit: Fade In Magazine)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. links for 2009-04-22 « Embololalia on 22 Apr 2009 at 2:03 pm

    [...] Fade In Magazine Talks Racism in Hollywood at Racialicious – the intersection of race and pop cultur… Screenwriter ““Hollywood is anything but liberal. I call them liberal bigots. Hollywood is filled with liberal bigots, and they use the thing of being liberal as a reason for being bigoted, for if they’d listen to themselves talk, and listen to their friends talk, they would find that they tell way too many black jokes, ethnic jokes.” (tags: film race racism usa) [...]

  2. Wes Goodlife » Mannnnn…. FUCK HOLLYWOOD!!!!!!!!! on 22 Apr 2009 at 4:22 pm

    [...] I was web surfing on my man Prometheus Brown’s blog and stumbled onto this… This is the exact reason why I’d never want to be in “Holllywood”. I’d be happy making [...]

  3. Latinos Under Siege? A Look At CNN’s Latino In America | Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 22 Oct 2009 at 10:01 am

    [...] Actors’ Guild president Ken Howard how he feels about his POC members working in an industry bent on excluding them would [...]

Comments

  1. Rest In Peace wrote:

    Wow and wow. But why am I not surprised?

    btw – longtime reader, 1st time commenting. love this blog!

  2. Slush wrote:

    Exactly. I, as a white American viewer, can’t be expected to sympathize with minority lead characters, because they’re so…unwhite! Which proves we have no common human experience.

  3. Eva wrote:

    This does not surprise me; all I have to do is look at the crap that’s on TV and the movies when it comes to people of color.

    The problem is that many of these Hollywood types are very incestuous. They were friends in high school or college or grad school. I know this because sometimes I’ll watch TV and recognize the names of directors and producers as people I went to high school with.

  4. abby wrote:

    As a black woman who wants to be the TV/Film industry, I’m not sure what to do with myself after reading this. It is truly depressing. I kinda expected it, but, I had no idea things were this bad and blatant.

  5. cocolamala wrote:

    They can read a good story about someone else and go, ‘That’s wonderful! But is there an audience for it?’

    I know, right? Why would anyone believe that ppl can sell cultural products drawn from a source outside their experience…?

    …take music for example. It would be different if white listeners made up some huge percentage of the hip hop audience…

  6. Pearl wrote:

    Wow, not that (if I think about it) any of that should have /really/ come as a surprise, but that was one of the more upsetting things I’ve read in a while.

  7. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    “Slumdog Millionaire” is the latest nonwhite movie to confirm the “people go to zoos” theory.

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I write about American Indians in Hollywood, and it’s sometimes hard to get a handle on the subject.

    “Liberal” filmmakers who don’t care about minority themes…what’s up with that? They should want to make multicultural films with minority casts to take advantage of the demographic trends. They’re leaving money on the table for the makers of “Diary of a Mad Black Woman” and “Slumdog Millionaire” to scoop up.

    But obviously multicultural films with minority casts aren’t happening to any great degree. This piece illuminates the nature of the problem: “liberal bigots.” The next question is why such people are running Hollywood. Why them and not conservative bigots or liberal non-bigots?

  8. atlasien wrote:

    I used to want to work in the film industry too… I spent a year working in a related field and gave that dream up very quickly.

    I don’t think it’s more or less racist than many other industries. However, the importance of networking is much greater than almost any other. When it comes to things like talent, work ethic, who you know… who you know is much, much more important. It’s almost like a feudal system and it’s totally rife with nepotism.

    That kind of environment is going to lead to the effects of racism being magnified. People who have the power promote their friends and relatives and sex partners, who tend to look just like the people who are already in power.

    Why liberal bigots? I think it’s because people who work in entertainment and the arts tend towards certain values. They value social liberalism, individual expression, flamboyance, rule-bending, innovation, etcetera. Conservatives suck at entertainment because they have the exact opposite values.

    And these entertainment industry values aren’t any more or less bigoted towards than values in other industries… but they think they’re less bigoted. So that actually gives the perception that they’re more bigoted, because the gap between presentation and reality is so huge (and hypocritical).

  9. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:

    Of course Hollywood hates women and people of color. Why are you all so shocked? Just look at the lack of women and people of color in big budget Hollywood films!

  10. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Re “these entertainment industry values aren’t any more or less bigoted towards than values in other industries”: I’m still not feeling it. People who value social liberalism, individual expression, and rule-bending should value multiculturalism. They go hand in hand. Acknowledging that the “establishment” doesn’t have all the answers is the same as saying that other belief systems (political, social, cultural, etc.) may have some answers. Expressing oneself and breaking the rules is the same as fighting the (white) power system.

    In short, being liberal should mean being multicultural–i.e., sensitive to nonwhite peoples and cultures–by definition. I’d say this IS the case in most places where liberals dominate: social work, academia, etc. You don’t see teachers or nurses making a lot of towelhead jokes, I bet. So why isn’t this the case in Hollywood?

  11. Charlotte wrote:

    @Rob Schmidt : Too true – I think there’s a huge market right now for stories from diverse cultures, which you can see by walking into any bookstore.

    People are curious about how other people live – and identifying with characters from a totally different background through fiction or film is one of the best ways to be exposed to new ideas and new people that you won’t run into our very segregated neighborhoods.

    Fiction and film have such power to open peoples’ minds to new ideas. I think your question about “why are these particular people running Hollywood and dictating what the rest of us watch” is really key. And hey, maybe that’s why I prefer Netflix to Hollywood – because I can order movies from all over the world, in multiple languages, and see worlds that I would never encounter otherwise.

    After all, being able to read perspectives from lots of different groups of people is one of the reasons I adore Racialicious so…

  12. CVT wrote:

    This all sounds about right to me. My brother is a screenwriter in Hollywood, and my little peeks through his world have left me gasping.

    It’s all about a bunch of EXTREMELY narrow-minded people at the top, with no real life experience or knowledge of the non-Hollywood world making decisions about “what the people want to see” or “what the people can understand,” etc. The people making those decisions are the most out-of-touch of anybody in this world, yet they’re the ones who “speak” for “the American movie-going public.” It’s disgusting.

  13. atlasien wrote:

    @Rob:
    “In short, being liberal should mean being multicultural–i.e., sensitive to nonwhite peoples and cultures–by definition. I’d say this IS the case in most places where liberals dominate: social work, academia, etc.”

    I disagree… it really all depends on your definition of liberal. For example, classical liberalism is more like what we think of libertarianism today, there’s a lot more emphasis on the free market and a lack of concern for disadvantaged groups.

    There’s a lot of libertarian-type sentiment that goes sort of like this: “I’m a rebel, I love my dope and guns and porn, the government sucks, white males are being persecuted, don’t tax me harder, READ ATLAS SHRUGGED!”.

    Another example: The Netherlands is one of the most socially liberal countries in the world, and they have major problems with racism and Islamophobia.

    Working in entertainment and the arts encourages values of social liberalism, in that these people tend to reject traditional absolutist codes governing human behavior. And I think they do value multiculturalism in as much as multiculturalism can be presented as rebellion against an older, traditional racist order. But it’s a facile, shallow kind of multiculturalism that doesn’t really involve any sacrifice or taking responsibility.

    I think people who work in teaching and social work probably have their own horror stories about racism to tell also… it’s going to present itself differently than in Hollywood, but it’s there.

  14. cocolamala wrote:

    @Rob “being liberal should mean being multicultural”

    it should, but it frequently doesn’t especially if no one is examining and critiquing their race and class privilege (basically their ability to ignore voices outside their realm of experience)

    the division between white feminists and WOC womanists is an example of that situation.

  15. Tracey wrote:

    @atlaisen (13): total cosign. I think that’s the problem. Hollywood(like the MSM to some degree) is called liberal but really more libertarian in values. Not only do they hold a lot of racist ideas and outlooks but they don’t care so long as it makes money. In addition to the depiction of minorities and women, let us not forget their obsession with Horatio Alger retold (work hard and anyone can make it in the good old US of A). Bunch of pretentious jerks and in no way are the stories surprising. I still have most of my views about Hollywood shaped by Hollywood Shuffle.

  16. Ejunco wrote:

    Hell This isn’t suprising, I wonder who are the directors these writers are talking about makes you wonder huh?

  17. Oscar Micheaux wrote:

    To me, most Hollywood movies pitched to black people are complete dreck. I am so tired of the “she’s so fabulous” and “he’s so doggish” filmazoic period, often featuring the same five-eight people (Morris Chestnut, Vivica A. Fox, Cedric the Entertainer, Taye Diggs, Nia Long, MoNique, etc.). Of course, I have friends who are delighted for “us” to be in this phase because it’s moved us slightly past the late ’80s early ’90s “Thuggish, Ruggish, Gang-Dwelling Psychopath” period. And though the performers in some films have occasionally brought gravitas to their roles, I know it must burn the beejebus out of them that they usually have garbage to work with — garbage that’s often the result trying to play to racist perceptions of the “target demographic.” Then again, maybe it doesn’t bother these folks too much because at least they’re working and may have gained some notariety in the process. Still, I can’t even bring myself to rent some of the stuff on video for fun.

    From the looks of the “Fade In” piece, perhaps the best route for those who’ve made a little money in the business is to pool their resources, develop a formula, and build their own shop like Will Smith has done. Then, hire people committed to vision. Mix, stir, repeat. (Yes, I know it’s easier said than done.) One thing I’ve learned is nobody is going to give up their privilege without a fight.

  18. Erica wrote:

    Thank you for posting it. Considering the utter tripe that often comes out of Hollywood, it really shouldn’t be a surprise that its workers (from writers up to executives) have problems with race, sex, and a host of other issues. Nevertheless, it’s eye-opening to read the stories.

    I’d be overjoyed if Hollywood would produce more, authentic material about/by/for non-white audiences. Maybe I’d bother going to a movie theater for the first time in a decade. I’m pretty bored with Things White People Apparently Like and its infinite sequels.

  19. embarcadero113 wrote:

    No shocker here. Hollywood validates its own existence by re-creating it, over and over again.

    The bigger issue is that white writers try to tell the stories of POC, and it comes across as disingenuous– then they don’t profit, which furthers the cycle that “Black movies don’t sell,” or whatever their justification may be. If Hollywood allowed more authentic voices to shine through, they would find that our stories are just as profitable (if not moreso), and certainly more powerful than “Crank 2.”

  20. Winn wrote:

    @atlasien, Cosign as usual. Is it any wonder I spent my professional acting career on the stage rather than dealing with the mess that is Hollywood? Never regretted it one moment.

    Charlotte said people are curious about how other people live…but only if they haven’t already defined for themselves how other people live, or had it defined for them. Why would white people want to see films about blacks for example? They have us figured out already, right? Let’s see, how would they break it down…hip hop, church, somebody in jail or on drugs regardless of education or social class, somebody playing basketball or football, somebody scheming to get out of working and make a fast buck, absent fathers, racism and discrimination located waaay back in the past, and accusations of current racism countered with talk about Oprah and Obama. See, that’s pretty much the black story in a nutshell, right?

    Hollywood has no idea what to do with accomplished narratives that don’t follow these ridiculous throughlines, which is why “Eve’s Bayou” didn’t lead to a flood of offers for Kasi Lemmons, why thirteen years passed between “Killer of Sheep” and “To Sleep with Anger” for Charles Burnett (and he still hasn’t been able to capitalize on the raves he earned for both films), why Julie Dash hasn’t had another theatrically released film since “Daughters of the Dust”. For every Antoine Fuqua or Hughes Brothers or John Ridley who breaks through and gets to work on projects not explicitly associated with African American life, there are dozens of others who never even get an opportunity, not to mention that the Fuquas, Hughes and Ridleys are held to a higher standard and have less margin for error than their white counterparts. That insulated, privileged and myopic view of the world is peddled in Hollywood because it is endemic there, and it starts with the studio execs and filters down to producers, directors and casting directors. But at the heart of this is that conviction that only comes from privilege, the belief that the stories of people who don’t look or think like you don’t deserve to be told, unless they can be exoticized, commodified, or nullified in some way. And the dismissive, patronizing blather about “diversity efforts” is only a smokescreen to obscure the fact that Hollywood continues to be the ultimate white “old boys network” and they have no intention of changing, at least not until the bottom line is affected, and for more than just a couple of seasons.

  21. Jess wrote:

    I think Rob’s point is sort of on, but there’s another factor here others have touched on: who does the owning and hiring.

    Take the News industry (where I work). A lot of reporters are pretty liberal, and most vote Democrat, and a lot of them are pretty sophisticated in their understanding of race and class, believe it or not. In fact, that’s a big reason why people go into journalism to start with.

    But that can’t be what gets on the page all the time, because of the constraints of the stuff you are writing, and the reporters aren’t the ones who sign the checks.

    Remember the big story of George Bush’s surveillance program? The reporters who dug it up cared deeply about the effect of that program on our democracy, and by extension on PoC, though that was secondary — but they knew why monitoring people you disagree with is all kinds of bad. They wanted to run with it.

    They didn’t decide to hold the story. The publishers did. The higher-ups. The guys who sign the checks.

    Daniel Pearl was hardly a lefty radical, but he felt very strongly that the stories of Muslims in places like Pakistan should be told (that is why he spent a lot of time and effort to meet with them rather than hanging around in government offices in Islamabad). He might not agree with them, but he did feel that you had to understand what people were saying.

    His bosses screwed him up by revealing sources and information to the CIA (and saying they did so publicly), and Pearl is dead because of that. Again, he was a pretty liberal guy, but he isn’t the one who runs the business.

    In Hollywood, a similar phenomenon occurs. You have creative people who do want to tell a much wider variety of stories than the business will allow. It’s no accident that while PBS/Public Radio isn’t perfect, they do a much better job. KPFK (IIRC) had a whole discussion about how to run the station in a democratic fashion, that ain’t happening at your average Hollywood studio.

    So the stuff that gets financed is narrow, and reflects what makes money. But more important, what will be more likely to make money.

    This is a profit-driven business. If I am going to shell out $20 million to make a movie, I damned well want to know I will make it back. That’s why for kids studios want to make movies that can be tied into toys, and why there’s a big Direct-to-Video market for certain kinds of films that are cheap to produce but have enough T&A in them to get someone to rent/buy it. (Thrillers are pretty good returns on investment in this respect, and so are small-scale cop/action films).

    Note that the politics of the people in the industry here do not matter, anymore than the politics of the guy who works in an factory matter. I could be the most progressive, Che-Guevara and Angela-Davis and Lenin quoting dude in Hollywood* but that won’t matter jack when it comes to getting greenlit by the man with the cash.

    Many in Hollywood do value multiculturalism, even if in a narrow way. But they also all have to make a living. (Spike Lee’s Hollywood Shuffle is a fine illustration of this dynamic).

    Or as my sister, who was once an aspiring actor, said, “How many times are you willing to take your clothes off?” She left the industry because, as she put it, it was one in which infantile behavior was too often rewarded.

    Again though, her politics didn’t matter a whit because she wasn’t the one calling the shots. And the way to call the shots is to have a load of money. It isn’t fair but unless you’re going to replace capitalism next week that’s the way it is.

    *Yes, I show my age.

  22. Kaonashi wrote:

    No surprises here. The best movies featuring POCs aren’t made by Hollywood; they’re foreign. Oooh, let’s see what’s on the drawing board…Obsession? Black women at a White one (who of COURSE is blond and crazy) who is trying to steal her big Black buck of a husband? Stop me if you’ve heard this one before!

    This is why I support the indie and foreign market. I refuse to watch (legally) what other people think I should be watching. Ironically, Hollywood is losing money by the bucketful and is wondering why.

  23. Invasian wrote:

    Makes one want to both stay the hell away from Hollywood and to work within it and bring the motherfuckin’ ruckus! By that I mean diminish the negativity and harm done to POC’s and women. Of course, with all the rich white guys running the show, it won’t be an easy task.
    It’s frustrating because it’s all about money. It is more important than artistic integrity, open-mindedness, cultural awareness, etc. I just don’t that trend stopping any time soon.
    Boo Hollywood.

  24. The First Carol wrote:

    That was exhausting, humiliating and demoralizing. Why am I writing? I thought to influence these people into producing multi-cultural pieces. I think I’m having a bad day, a really bad day. I may write them all into my next novel…and…and… Well, I’ll think of something.

  25. macon d wrote:

    Great post, thank you–very revealing, and it explains A LOT.

    (btw, Hollywood Shuffle is a great movie, but Robert Townsend did it, not Spike Lee.)

  26. L. wrote:

    Jess,

    I think your point just speaks to the fact that we need more diverse “owners”. Btw, Hollywood Shuffle was a Robert Townsend film.

  27. Staying Strong wrote:

    Robert Townsend wrote and directed Hollywood Shuffle.

  28. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    When I use the word “liberal,” I mean it in its present sense, not its classic sense. Namely, “1. Having, expressing, or following social or political views or policies that favor non-revolutionary progress and reform. 2. Having, expressing, or following views or policies that favor the freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing.” I presume everyone here does too.

    I understand that the brand of Hollywood “liberalism” evident in, say, “South Park” or “Family Guy” is more like libertarianism. I’ve criticized these shows for supposedly targeting “everyone” when they target the disadvantaged much more than the advantaged. “Family Guy,” for instance, generally ends up affirming middle-class white values.

    If you’re saying that Hollywood execs are really libertarians, I can cosign (hip way of saying “agree”) with that. My point is that we shouldn’t blame “liberals” if they’re not liberals. We’re muddying the waters if we say genuine liberals are as racist as conservatives. If we’re all equally guilty, how can we point the finger at anyone else?

    True, some of us liberals are prejudiced too. But overall, we’re not as bad as conservatives or libertarians. Nor do I think this is a matter of opinion. I’m sure studies have shown that liberals are more openminded and tolerant on racial and cultural issues.

  29. atlasien wrote:

    @Rob: I don’t disagree that much… I’d never say that liberals (in the modern standard sense) are just as racist as conservatives. Anyone who says that, and really means it, is showing some naivety about the conservative mentality… liberals would have to work really, really hard to get as racist as conservatives.

    I’ll admit that there are a very few conservatives who don’t actively support racist ideologies… they tend to be the ones that belong to consciously interracial churches that channel evangelical fervor towards different ends than the “mainstream” Religious Right. Other than that, conservatives use racism like gasoline. If they feel anyone’s enthusiasm flagging, they pour on the “welfare mothers” and the “anchor babies” and the “Judeo-Christian values” and the… oh well, I don’t want to divert this thread with a rant, so I’ll stop now.

    Anyway, I think liberalism is pretty race-neutral. It can either justify racism or attack racism, depending on context. It’s better than conservatism, but I wouldn’t make the equivalence that liberal=anti-racist.

  30. Brandon wrote:

    OK… Hollywood sucks. We’re all clear on that. But I’m stunned to see people giving the American viewing audience so much credit. It’s nice to think that if Hollywood made better films from truly diverse points of view then people would come… but I’m not buying it.

    I’m not defending the Hollywood studios… but I don’t exactly think that the American people are hungry for nuanced films on issues of race and multiculturalism.

  31. Jess wrote:

    To all: I stand corrected! Sorry about that!

    Rob: Hollywood execs have one philosophy: return on my investment.

    If someone made a billion dollars on Matewan then you can bet your booty they’d be all about greenlighting that kind of stuff. Especially i it could be made into a sequel with a tie-in — t-shirts? Popcorn bags? Whatever.

    But that isn’t the way it works. Advertisers have their craft pretty well down to a science. They know exactly what people will pay the most for. Movie execs rely on these studies as well. We may not all like it here, but the fact is more people are gonna tune in to a reality show train wreck than we often like to admit.

    I mean, for example, Latoya — she says she likes to watch Sex in the City despite its problematic politics because it’s a rest from having to do all the stuff about racism and oppression all day long. Most people work all day and want to rest as well (this is why we plop down in front of the TV at the end of the day). Making and absorbing other kinds of entertainment is hard.

    That’s why the stuff that seems like dreck sells. There is a reason The World’s Sexiest Beaches is the new Travel Channel headliner (probably to eventually replace No Reservations, much to my chagrin). Lots of people like to look at boobs. Not you, maybe, and not a lot of people here, but we aren’t spending the kind of money that gets advertisers’ attention.

    I know a lot of people will pipe up and say “But black people/PoC/women are a huge market” yes, but remember, if you can do that calculation so can a studio exec. And they didn’t come up with numbers that made them want to cater to that in the way we would like. Tyler Perry proved he makes money — nothing else mattered or matters to the owners.

    That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make a more diverse crop of films and entertainment. But profit-making creates a kind of feedback loop: X makes money, so we do X again, and make more money, and that makes us less likely to risk money on Y which might make a lot, but I know X will. And my shareholders don’t care about what is just or right or progressive either.

    It ain’t right. But it’s the way it is and it’s important to recognize why that is. And it’s a great illustration of how a structure that isn’t explicitly racist/sexist can have that effect anyway.

  32. Taryn wrote:

    liberals, conservatives: same shit, different spin. Winn I think I will forever co-sign you! I wish I had my own lil racialicious family in Seattle. Seriously reading these articles and reading everyone’s comments makes my day a lil better. Thank you.

  33. urbanpartner wrote:

    @Jess: Dug your post – but must mention that “Hollywood Shuffle” was made by Robert Townsend – not Spike Lee. He financed the movie with his credit cards; he couldn’t get a break or an in – even after his role in “A Soldier’s Story”. But you are so right – “He that pays the piper calls the tune”. It takes money and distribution to give a media product “legs”. And sometimes even a media push deosn’t work. Remeber Ishtar and Heaven’s Gate? They want a sure thing and their view of what’s sure is extremely limited.

  34. Singlutionary wrote:

    I don’t work in hollywood but I’m an actor in a smaller film market and I’m mixed race. When the breakdowns come out they are for asian or hispanic or african american or white. Rarely is there a part for “any ethnicity” unless its a commercial. The parts for minorities are so stereotypical. I guess the parts for everyone are pretty stereotypical but since almost all the main parts are for white people, the quantity and quality of roles available to non-whites is much lower.

    Because I am mixed race, I get sent out for asian stuff but not white stuff. And sometimes I am not asian enough for the asian stuff. So I am always being screwed.

    I can’t figure out if this is racism or just the fact that hollywood tells stupid contrived stories for the most part.

  35. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Re “Hollywood execs have one philosophy: return on my investment”: I understand that. But I also understand that low-budget movies like “The Blair Witch Project,” “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” and “Slumdog Millionaire” can make huge profits. And that big-budget movies can sink like a stone. If I were a studio exec, I’d put my money into quality $10-20 million movies with multicultural casts, not bombs like “The Love Guru,” “Punisher: War Zone,” and “Speed Racer.”

    The point is that the evidence shows that the right multicultural movies can make money. Studios should be gambling on them as much as they gamble on anything else. Any other approach is irrational.

    Re “Movie execs rely on these studies as well”: You do know that many movies and most TV shows flop, right? I haven’t seen any evidence that studio execs know what works better than, say, a roomful of chimps with darts. If baseball players struck out as often as these execs do, they’d be sent to the showers.

    Did these execs know that shows like “ER,” “Lost,” “Heroes,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” and “Ugly Betty,” with their multicultural casts, would be successful? No. Having watched the “ER” retrospective, I know they didn’t have a clue about “ER,” and I’m guessing they didn’t have a clue about the others.

    They also didn’t have a clue about the mini-series “Roots” and “Lonesome Dove” before these went on to huge success. The execs didn’t rely on “studies” for these series, they decided by the seat of their pants. They rolled the dice, took a chance, guessed.

    So I have to agree with William Goldman, who said, “Nobody knows anything.” I’d say the network TV industry is slowly dying because its executives don’t have any idea what audiences want. They’re marking time until their demise with lame reality shows and Leno at 10 pm.

  36. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Re “X makes money, so we do X again, and make more money, and that makes us less likely to risk money on Y which might make a lot, but I know X will.” The problem with this is that it’s false and delusional. Studio execs don’t know what will be a hit and fail more often than they succeed. Therefore, they need to try a new approach. As Albert Einstein said, “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” is insanity.

  37. atlasien wrote:

    The idea that Hollywood is a well-honed money-making machine is… really wrong.

    It’s incredibly inefficient, riddled with nepotism and favoritism, and has such arcane and non-transparent financial practices that no one really knows how much money they’re making. Here’s a good article explaining why the finances are so weird. Plus, Hollywood is a magnet for money launderers of all levels. For some stakeholders, whether or not a movie makes money is the least of their worries.

    It has a huge workforce of young people who are willing to work for free, or even pay money to work, because of the glamor factor, which skews its labor market. It’s also fueled by rich people with oversize egos who can afford to make whacko vanity projects like Battlefield Earth.

    Compared to other industries, like agribusiness or even financial services, it’s just not very good at making money.

  38. Tara K. wrote:

    I think that last bit that you point out is proved true by the overwhelming success of _Slumdog Millionaire_. I mean, the movie is white-washed with some very fair-skinned Indian women; it’s sticky with traditionalism, conventional gender roles, over-dosed heroism, and women without any agency.

    But, all that said, a gazillion white people clamored to theaters to see it.

  39. Lxy wrote:

    There’s a popular lie that White liberals or progressives are somehow more racially benevolent that conservatives.

    No.

    White racism and supremacy involve a system that upholds the power of European Americans as a *class*—across the political spectrum from Left to Right.

    The difference between White Liberal racism and that of their Conservative tag-team partners is a difference in the MASK they wear and the TACTICS they use to keep themselves at the top of America’s racial food chain.

    Hollywood is an example of “Liberal” wing of this media system.

    In fact, White liberalism vs. White conservatism is essentially a Good Cop vs. Bad Cop political scam.

    As Malcom X once said, the former is like a fox while the latter is like a wolf, but both are predatory at their core.

  40. Mammith wrote:

    I kinda knew to an extent about a lot of this stuff, however I never knew it was as bad as this. As an aspiring writer it really disheartens me.

    @Rob Schmidt – RE: Lost/Ugly Betty/etc, you have to remember most films have one lead character due to their short duration, so the chance execs would want to ‘risk it’ and cast a POC lead in something greatly diminishes. Those shows are ensemble cast productions, so can afford to have a much more diverse cast of charecters, as producers would feel less nervous with white lead characters still in there.

    I personally write near enough all my screenplays/scripts with ensemble casts (mainly as a thematic thing I like; different viewpoints and all, but also with the added benefit of being able to write POC/women/working-class/glbt/etc charecters).

  41. John Jihoon Chang wrote:

    Working in the industry, I’m actually pretty fortunate in that I haven’t yet faced a great amount of any explicit racism, probably because right now I’m still in the lower ranks. But, even here it’s abundantly clear that nepotism rules this industry at least in terms of who gets to interview for what positions and that’s true even in the lower ranks (including assistants like me). I’m certainly using my connections to the extent that I’m able, that’s for certain!

    I’m fortunate to have networked with a group of people that are surprisingly non-racist (or at least apparently so) and somewhat diverse and so I’ve been blunted from the darker aspects of tinseltown. But I don’t doubt that it’s going to be a hell of a struggle for me once I move past the entry-level phase, even more so since I don’t have the racial privilege .

    Still, if we don’t try, we can’t change the system, and change requires sacrifice. So, I guess I just keep on trying.

  42. Miles Ellison wrote:

    Movies are like sausage. If you like either one, you shouldn’t look at how they’re made.

    If this article is any indication of the mindset in Hollywood, we can expect a Birth of a Nation remake in the near future.

  43. Antonio wrote:

    I watched the documentary The Celluloid Closet (which dealt with depictions of gays in film) and one point someone brought up was that the executives of a lot of these studios are conservatives. I’m not saying that ALL the blame can be placed on executives, but they obviously have a lot of influence on what’s greenlit and what isn’t. Many older films had homosexual overtones that were softened or removed due to the studio execs’ influence.

    One (rather odd) anecdote was that in one film there was a scene involving a room full of gay men partying. The studio didn’t want the white gays to explicitly say they were gay, but somehow was ok with a black man saying it. The writer who told the story found it bizarre, but my take is that black people were the “other” to the exec and since he didn’t “understand” anymore than he “understood” gays, the two together seemed somehow less offensive.

  44. DomiX wrote:

    This is disappointing. I want to write and direct films, but if this is what I may encounter, it really discourages me.

  45. Invasian wrote:

    @Lyx
    I agree 100% with you. White liberals can sometimes be blinded by their own “progressiveness” and “liberalism.”
    Great Malcolm X reference. That’s one of my favorite parts in his autobiography.

    There are certainly conservatives in Hollywood (i.e. Jerry Bruckheimer, Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone, etc.), and they can be pretty powerful and influential. So while Hollywood may be labeled as liberal, that’s just so they are let off the hook when it comes to racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc.

  46. Invasian wrote:

    Oops, sorry, I meant @ Lxy.

  47. Westerly wrote:

    This is probably not the best thing to say on a site that is dedicated to media reform but – Hollywood is not going to magically reform or be changed from the inside (or the outside for that matter) anytime soon. It is far too invested in being what it is – a big, dumb, money-making monolith that is happy to profit off of stale, racist formulas and an astounding lack of imagination. Face it – wondering why Hollywood can’t produce even half-way decent films is the equivalent of trying to prepetually dissect *why* MacDonald’s can’t serve up steak mignon.

    That’s not what it’s there for. For me, Hollywood is so flawed and so limited, that even in terms of popular culture it is increasingly becoming a byword for ‘redundant’ and ‘irrelevant’. It just doesn’t work.

    If intelligent, interesting storytelling and diverse voices and representation is your interest then yes, you could aim to make Hollywood less racist. However, since it’s racism isn’t ‘accidental’ but signals a clear commitment, then…yeah. Fortunately Hollywood and American television are not the sole representatives of popular culture.

    @Rob – regarding liberalism:
    “Acknowledging that the “establishment” doesn’t have all the answers is the same as saying that other belief systems (political, social, cultural, etc.) may have some answers. Expressing oneself and breaking the rules is the same as fighting the (white) power system. ”

    No.
    No, it’s not. We saw exactly how well that worked out with hippies in their beads and feathers, fighting “the man” and sticking it to the ‘establishment’ – by freely piggy-backing on other cultures that they had no real relationship with. Half the time, these people had no idea of ‘who’ or what they were expressing. Their so-called “resistance” consisted of little more than cherry-picking and appropriating all the ‘cool’ and pretty bits off of other cultures. (Same thing with so-called ‘wiggas’)

    Temporary teen rebellion followed by cultural dress-ups/drag, the middle finger, sticking out your tongue and a few flashy tantrums before quietly sinking back into the safe familiar embrace of ‘the establishment’ because really, you’d never left it in the first place.

    Fixing your own culture actually means looking it in the eye, accepting it for what it is and either working to improve it or if need be, jettisoning the worst aspects and starting anew from the ground up – rather than taking the easy way out by having a fun escapist ‘dip’ into someone else’s.

    The same phenomena occurs with Hollywood whenever it decides that culture ‘X’ is soup du jour and we all get to go on a fashionable whirlwind of multicultural tourism or peeping-tomism which lasts for all of five seconds. That’s the thing with frequenting the ‘zoo’ – you go there, gawk, point and stare – and then you go the hell back HOME.

    So I’m extremely wary when liberals try and position other cultures as a solution to the West’s woes. Even your statement that the ‘establishment isn’t all knowing’ and that other belief systems may in fact ‘have some answers’ unconsciously situates white culture as the central, legitimate arbiter of knowledge/ability (albeit one that sometimes fails).

    It then situates ‘other’ cultures as useful resources or stop-gaps that exist to fill in or paper over what white culture can’t. As if they exist to provide new and interesting directives for white culture, or as if they are innately medicinal and are there to be consumed in order to make the West ‘better’ etc.

    The false assumption (or presumption) in all of this is the idea that other cultures are even interested addressing the concerns and neurosis of Hollywood or providing ‘alternatives’ whenever white American culture fails (in this case, in it’s abysmal storytelling).

    And that’s where liberalism (be it of the Hollywood variety or otherwise) inevitably falls down with it’s universalising ways. Thing is, no other culture is obliged to gallop to the rescue or to lay it’s cultural, artistic and intellectual resources bare in order to make Hollywood a marginally (or greatly) better industry, or more of a palatable wreck with lashings of diversity or multi-cultural enlightenment or whatever.

    The thing that liberalism cannot contemplate is that not everyone wants “in”. Cultures who are happy and secure in their ability to tell interesting and meaningful stories often don’t give a flying fig about Hollywood’s pathetic inability to do so and are not asking to be implicated in that mess. They’re not necessarily hankering to have their stories writ large by Hollywood or even translated into film fullstop.

    (Which is yet another thing that Hollywood and mainstream American television sucks at – it is a terrible judge at discerning that sometimes film/tv is NOT the best medium for particular narratives. Not everything story ‘needs’ to be made into a shitty film or a weak television show in order to spice up my viewing life and satiate my Westernised boredom.)

    And in terms of film, not everyone is interested in being represented ‘to’ (or, representing themselves to) an intended audience that somehow never INCLUDES them. And if they do wish to represent one of their stories on a global stage – they might not be looking at Hollywood to do it for them.

  48. thebiblophile wrote:

    Lxy @ 39: Yes! Thank you.

    I actually find white liberalism more frightening and dangerous that white conservatism. Why? Because, conservatives are not hiding their beliefs, liberalism is cloaked with all types of hidden motives – and truly confused about its own purpose. So well said.

    Just wondering what people thought of a few movies:
    1. 28 Days
    2. Rachel Getting Married
    3. Something New
    4. Kill Bill
    5. Doubt
    6. Benjamin Button –
    http://thebibliophile.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/the-curious-case-of-integrated-racism/

  49. NancyP wrote:

    The major studio people with the bucks and power are risk averse and thus don’t want to finance movies that are not targeted toward existing audiences using existing plots and themes. It is all very formulaic. 95% of Hollywood products are of this type. I sit through trailers and think “horror movie for white teen boys 11-18″, “action movie for black boys and men, 14 to 35″, “date movie for the white under-25 set”, “date movie for the black 20 to 40 set”, “family movie or friends comedy movie for ages 15 to 50″…

    This is why I don’t go to many U.S. major-studio-made movies. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    It doesn’t help that I am in the dread “over-40/no kids at home” demographic.

  50. NancyP wrote:

    My anesthetic of choice is a dance movie or song-and-dance movie – any dance style, any plot. All dance movie plots are hokey, anyway. Ballet, ballroom, Broadway, flamenco, step, tango, tap, vogue, you name it, if there’s music and movement, I will watch it. Plus, I have seen the ones I own a zillion times, so if I want 15 minutes of a movie, those are the ones I choose.

  51. Westerly wrote:

    ‘its’ not ‘it’s’ *eyeroll*

  52. Sabine Mondestin wrote:

    I just can keep my self from hoping for a better tomorrow.

  53. elle the elephant wrote:

    This is shocking but not surprising. I always felt that the idea that hollywood is liberal was a lie, especially if your a movie buff like me. I mean, look at the type of movies are promoted: rugged white guy beats the crap out of evil French terrorist (die hard) good all American robots and US military beat the crap out of evil foreign robots(Transformers) white all American boy beats up ghetto Black guy(Rocky). I mean, there are so few options and so narrow its ridiculous.
    The values that Hollywood pushes are antithetical to liberalism and progressivism in general: worship of anti-intellectualism,materialism,superficiality,violence, respect for authority and the establishment,soft racism, no critiques of institutions, problems are seen as the faults of the individual, and can’t be possible wrong with society.
    Also, just because someone is liberal does not make themselves more enlightened than conservatives. Speaking as a Social Democrat, many liberals are just as self-centered, anti-intellectual, and bigoted as any conservative. I mean, after all, they were born in the US, they experience the same culture as Americans, and live in the same places as conservatives, just because there liberals they are free of the negative affects of our corporatist culture? Clinton presided over welfare reform that pushed millions into poverty, and Lyndon Johnson pushed on with the Vietnam War. Why should someone being a liberal protect themselves from being jerks?

  54. Pheagan wrote:

    Oh my God. I just read this fervently– and I think I just realized that most of the thinking I do about racial issues is provoked by Hollywood, or mass-produced art in general.

    But yeah. I dunno, it’s weird, most of the stuff I’ve been seeing has been in the last couple years. First is this Hollywood-remake-of-Asian-horror-movie bullshit, which usually people are like– Subtitles! Everyone knows subtitles are kryptonite to Americans! But then I’m like, Crouching tiger, Hidden Dragon did perfectly well, and I contend that if Ringu had had the same marketing as The Ring, it would have done better, because it’s a way more entertaining movie. And then I think of all the great American directors, and almost all of them were inspired by the European cinema revolution, and we’re really losing an opportunity because China and Korea and Japan are making the best movies that I’m seeing right now, and we have lost the chance for there to be a similar synergy in this era. And it’s not because there’s no audience– all those Cosplayers that throw money at the manga empire? They’d be down. All those comic aficionados throwing money at the latest superhero movie? They’d be down. I mean, how much sense does it make to buy the rights to a movie, and then spend millions of dollars to make another one instead of just distribute the one that’s already made and you already have the rights to? What business sense does that make? It’s not just xenophobia, there’s racism, too.

    I mean, I really think people are hungry to see themselves, and that’s what the Tyler Perry situations shows.

    And it’s not just the lack of presence of people of color in film, but the racism and racist mentality that creeps in. Like the Apatow movies– they do really well portraying Jews without stereotyping, but it ends there. Knocked up ends with a white couple joking about the Bloods and the Crips. They’re in LA. There’s not one black person in that movie (ok, that I can recall). And I realized, how many movies have I seen set in LA, a white minority city, and there aren’t even ever any freaking Hispanic people in the background?

    And this site has addressed the Avatar bullshit.

    And Angelina Jolie is apparently Hollywood for black. How many roles that were originally intended for black actresses has she taken? OK, two. And that movie where Mena Suvari plays the counterpart of a woman who is black in real life? And they give her corn rows? What kind of brain cell count do you have to have for that to pass for logic?

    And isn’t Smoke Signals the only movie yet produced by and starring Native Americans? Isn’t Better Luck Tomorrow as yet the only American movie produced by and starring Asian Americans? The hell?

    And then I’m like, when I watch movies from the 70s, people of color are more present. There are simply more people there. Their portrayal is not without problems, but at least they’re THERE. And I realize, we have stepped back. We have stepped back and back and back, and I don’t understand why we are this far back, now.

    And you know, people can talk about Hollywood being superficial and this and that, but it is still art, popular art. And art is a mirror to life, but not one that reflects what is there. The greatest potential art has is to reflect what can be there. And Hollywood hasone of the biggest mirrors there is, and regardless of how much money it makes people, it affects us. It affects society way more than the best little-known book or indie movie is going to. It shows us what the future could be and it is all freaking white.

  55. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Re “White racism and supremacy involve a system that upholds the power of European Americans as a *class*—across the political spectrum from Left to Right.”

    A few major problems with this statement:

    1) White liberals and conservatives often aren’t in the same socioeconomic class. Liberals = lower and conservatives = upper.

    2) White conservatives have held most of the political power for the last few decades. They’ve made the key decisions, not liberals.

    3) White conservatives dominate in other powerful institutions, particularly business.

    In short, if you think white liberals and conservatives exercise equal power over minorities, I’d say you’re mistaken.

    In addition, I referred to studies that show liberals are more tolerant and openminded. Your opinion that an abstract power structure negates these studies is just that…your opinion. If you have any empirical evidence that liberals are as racist as conservatives, by all means provide it.

    But this certainly would be an interesting question for Racialicious to tackle. Does anyone want to develop an argument that liberals are as racist as conservatives?

  56. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    P.S. “Rachel Getting Married”? A black family is used as a colorful backdrop for a white family’s story.

    Signed,

    A Typical Liberal

  57. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    I haven’t seen “Doubt” or “Benjamin Button,” but I’m guessing the point is black people are used as props for white people’s stories.

    It’s been a while since I’ve seen “Kill Bill Vol. 1,” but I’m guessing the point is Asian people are used as props for white people’s stories.

    I’m not sure what the point of “28 Days” is. I believe it’s a story about white people with no major minority characters. I don’t think it uses any black people as props a la “Rachel Getting Married.”

    I think the point of “Something New” is a bit too complex to dismiss summarily. See the Racialicious thread from a couple of years ago for more information.

    Did I pass the test? I generally notice when minorities are used as props in movies and TV shows. Not bad for a typical white liberal, eh?

  58. Daniel wrote:

    Although it’s unfortunante, for several odd reasons, I’m not really surprised about these issues regarding Hollywood and race. I’m strongly leaning towards the need for profit as a big reason though not the only one for such sentiments.

    I watch a lot of foreign entertainment and media just as much or maybe a bit more than the media here (US). I know not everyone has the same tastes, but doing that sort of balances the images of whatever the studios here put out. You all can basically throw whatever questionable materials regarding POC out the window. Even though it’s not PC, foreign media has it’s own unique semi-respectable style which is generally speaking, not as rude as it is here. I think there’s an unique attraction when viewing media from studios where POC are the majority. I get the same feelings whenever I watch indies or any of the minority-oriented films in the States.

    I think one of the reasons (other than the obvious ones) why us minorities feel quite disapointed at the local studios is that we expect more from them. North America was,is and will in essence always be a cosmopolitan society. In regards to race, Hollywood has often been backwards than what was reflective of reality though there have been moments worth admiring.

    There are dark sides in nearly every industry and entertainment is subjective in nature. Frankly speaking, most people do not think that much when being entertained. Unless it’s in your face type of play, a lot of the questionable material doesn’t have to be spoon fed or taught by the studios. Those sentiments and ideas are already present in the general population, target audience or anything reflective of whoever the creators intended their work for. Just a thought.

  59. Medusa wrote:

    @ Jess: Yeah, but you know that the statistics they go off are totally inaccurate. Goddamn I wish I could remember the source, but I remember reading that they don’t care about the dollars that black women would spend, even though black women in America have plenty of purchasing power. They just want to keep marketing shit to white men over and over. The producers and directors could do the math PROPERLY and figure out how to appeal to women and men of color, but they just don’t give a shit.

  60. Jess wrote:

    @Rob and altasien:

    I’m not saying that Hollywood is necessarily efficient in the market sense. Or that the execs know exactly what wil or won’t be successful — but some of the examples, well, take ER. Nobody knew it would be a huge success (a similar show called E/R did ot do as well). But they knew that St. Elsewhere pulled in audiences for several years.

    Same with all the cop shows. Hill Street Blues is the basic template, and it works again and again. That is one reason why Law and Order has a ton of spin-offs.

    So I might not know that a movie or TV show will work. But I know what has worked in the past, and if I am investing a load of cash then I want to do something that has a bigger likelihood of making a return.

    It’s no accident that the runaway successes of Townsend’s Hollywood Shuffle or Slumdog Millionaire are movies with low budgets. The Blair Witch Project fits in to that mold. Then there’s the buzz on the movie as it is released which is far from predictable.

    But with television — and other media that are advert-dependent — you have to understand that it isn’t so random. Have you noticed certain kinds of ads appear on the HG network ad other kinds of ads appear on TLC? Or that during ER you get ads for cars and more generalized products that require bigger ad budgets? This stuff is decided on a very sound basis, much as we all hate to admit it.

    Anyhow, the advertisers know very well who the likely audience is for ER. Or Law & Order, or any other show. There’s mountains of data. And more important to them they know who watches who is likely to spend money. That isn’t the same as reaching a whole population.

    It might be helpful to look at TV shows as vehicles to sell ads rather than as creative vehicles financed by ads.

    And altasien, you are right that Hollywood seems to operate on the weirdest finances — but in one sense, because so many people are willing to work under conditions they would never accept anywhere else, well, it is a moneymaking machine. No matter how you slice it, taking in $1 billion on a movie that costs $100 million to make is a huge margin that can subsidize a lot. Few other industries have margins like that. And yes, a lot of it is because Hollywood pays almost nothing for benefits. (Health insurance, pensions). That is huge.

  61. Jess wrote:

    @Medusa–

    Not all the stats they use are “inaccurate” — they just may not work for whatever business, let me give an example:

    Black women have purchasing power, a there is al sorts of data saying that they are more likely in some cases than black men to have decent jobs and all that. However you measure it, there is some money there, it is true.

    But let’s say I am selling, I dunno, clothes. I know that black women represent X% of the population. They are a minority — I mean. generously we could put the whole black population at 15% or so.

    So, if I have a clothing line that my marketing study says can sell for $10, and I know that 90% of the entire black female population will buy it, that sounds pretty good, right? If there are 150 million women in the country, and 22.5 million are black, I get sales of 200 million dollars. Wow!

    But it is nowhere near as good as a clothing line that will sell to just 30% of the population as a whole (ignoring whether they are PoC or not), which would add up to twice that — $450 million. This can assume not a single black woman bought anything — remember, the white population is just bigger.

    That’s the problem with being a minority — while there is purchasing power there and certainly there are those that want to cater to that market, the problem you run into is that the big money is elsewhere, just because of the sheer force of numbers.

    I could have an item, or an ad, that appealed to white people only and my potential market dwarfs black folks or latinos or asians. If I had something I was sure to appeal to all those demographics the situation would be different, but as many have pointed out here there’s a lot of diversity even within those markets.

    White people aren’t monolithic either. But because the white populati0n is so large relative to each minority group (this will likely change in the future), if I am an investor/advertiser I am going to go there first.

    Let me give an real-life example, in the daily newspaper market. Lots of non-white people read the New York Post, and lots of working class white people. In fact, it may well be in the top 10 largest circulation dailies anywhere.

    But many of those people aren’t the ones that advertisers want. Middle- and upper-middle class people of whatever color are the ones who look at newspaper ads less. And those are the people with money.

    And take a look at the kind of ads in the tabloids and the kind of ads in the New York Times. There’s a vast, vast difference. The Times is in trouble in part because the high-end stuff they advertise is getting exposure on line or on TV. Or in specialized magazines (a market that has exploded over the last 20 years or so).

    So do black women have purchasing power? Absolutely. The problem is that it isn’t necessarily enough to drive the big money — or at least, big enough money that many major companies are interested.

    That doesn’t mean there are no successful smaller outfits that appeal to that demographic, or that big companies are never interested. Just that in a general sense, ads are going to be made that appeals to where your odds of making a profit are greater.

    And since all media — even to an extent movies — are driven by advertising… you see what happens.

    A fine example of how capitalism can reinforce existing structures of dominance, no?

  62. Alston wrote:

    As true as I believe this to be, I think that it is probably even worse for interactive media such as video games. Latoya, would you confirm this?

  63. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    I’m prepping a follow up piece to this, but I did want to address something.

    Atlasien is absolutely right about the ridiculous financial flows. Some people are arguing it is all about money…but that logic doesn’t work in Hollywood. If that was the case, they’d be beating down the doors to find the next Tyler Perry.

    If a POC movie fails, it’s because white audiences don’t want to watch movies about POCs. If a POC movies succeeds, it becomes an *exception* proving the rule. And it doesn’t matter how many exceptions there are, the rule is never adjusted.

    But like I said, when I get some time, I’ll write a follow up about what I learned about race and Hollywood at Dov Simens’ 2 Day Film School.

    @Alston – That’s hard to answer. Video games tend to mimic Hollywood, so it absorbs all of their drama and issues. But unlike Hollywood, there is a real lack of scholarship and data around issues of race and representation – most of the people doing work in the field I either know personally (me, Pat, Andrea), know of, or will meet soon (Lisa Nakamura). And there aren’t the same tools available in the video games sphere as there are in Hollywood and Television to look at trends. But my first instinct is to say they are about equal – gaming is complicated because of the influence of Japanese studios and the fact that gamers don’t have the remake culture that Hollywood studios do. I’m currently doing more research on that and I’ll publish the findings later this year.

  64. sarah wrote:

    Maybe I’m naive, but I think Hollywood’s power and influence is well on its decline. Ten, fifteen years ago we had way fewer choices for media consumption (tv, theater, or local rental store), so the Industry dictated what we watched. But now, we have access to online media and other inexpensive outlets which further allow for democratization. Hence, the Industry is not as powerful as it used to be, since people are much less willing to pay $12 to see a movie in the theater. Keep in mind also that even with Hollywood’s large financial resources, Bollywood still sells more tickets annually each year than Hollywood does.

    My point is while we may have legitimate concerns racism and sexism in the Industry, we should also encourage women and people of color to tell their stories through other inexpensive, low-risk venues. It may not yield the same financial returns as getting something made in Hollywood, but it’s an option we didn’t have it before, and we should take as much advantage of it as possible.

  65. JC wrote:

    Like others commenters, this doesn’t surprise me one bit. Hollywood and Madison Ave are probably two of the most racist institutions in the world. As I read this, I’m just thinking “this is just as bad or worse than I have assumed.” Is there any wonder that movie casting is racist? The whole system is bastion of White Male supremacy from top to bottom. I wanted to give the Jewish folks who run most of the show in Hollywood a free pass given how they portrait even themselves, but I really don’t know if I can do it anymore. No matter who’s the perpetrator, this evil system needs to be reformed like so many other racist organizations in the US. It has crushed not only the dreams and creative aspirations of a large number of minorities and women, but it has brainwashed millions of kids around the world into destructive cycle of self-hate and white worship. Hollywood is THE major contributor of why white male and females are highly desirable in term of mate selection. This needs to stop NOW.

    It’s just so revolting to see all those Hollywood bigshots filming themselves supporting Obama while their real racial views are stuck in the 60’s. I don’t think I will ever give a major Hollywood studio another dime. It’s like offering patronage to a business run by the KKK.

  66. Miles Ellison wrote:

    The crux of the issue is that there is only so much dignity and diversity that Hollywood will accept when it comes to the portrayal of people of color on the screen and their participation in the industry. There is also a limit to the level of dignity in the portrayals of people if color that the coveted white audience will accept in their movies and TV shows.

    Thus, any film involving blacks that isn’t based on some form of minstrel stereotyping will face an uphill battle to get made or distributed. Films involving other ethnic groups that don’t trade in timeworn stereotypes won’t get made either.

  67. blip wrote:

    Oh goodie…my favorite topic on Racialicious.

    I hate to say it but the minorities usually picked by the status quo aren’t the writers/directors/producers who push for any type of real change in Hollywood. A lot of wimpy white women, blacks, Asians whatever are already there and they are essentially do-nothings. Tokens are always utterly useless.

    When I look at the films of French writer/director Catherine Brelliat, I wonder how come we don’t have an American female equivalent? Why did it take so long for Lee Daniels to break out? And will he get the distribution/awards he deserves with Precious?

    These hollywood-tokens are too readily compliant. They just want to be included. Totally not interested in doing anything revolutionary. As much as I despise Tyler Perry, I must say the Lionsgate statistic is impressive. TP provides 30% of their income? (Yeah, but on the backs of black women.)

  68. Pheagan wrote:

    @ Rob Schmidt– actually, in 28 days later, the girl, who was pretty awesome and badass, was black. Not a prop. And also, there.

  69. JC wrote:

    @sarah: I think the danger is that Hollywood still holds the kids hostage. Maybe their influence on the kids are waning, but kids still go out and watch the blockbusters. This kind of brainwashing will remain for yeas to come. Its no wonder so many of us are no longer going to the movies or watch TV as an adult.

    As for other venues, it’s already happening. The web-serial “The Guild”, a show about a bunch of WoW addicts, is a show written and produced by the lead actress herself (and donation from fans), and has a pretty diversified cast, including two Asian males as love interest – something you’ll never, ever find in mainstream Hollywood. It’s a bit of a niche comedy, but I feel its more creative than almost anything else I’ve watched on TV last year.

    http://www.watchtheguild.com/

  70. miss a. wrote:

    I’m so glad you posted this. I’ve been having issues with Hollywood ever since I noticed the excessive amount of chink eye that’s been going around. As an Atlantan, I’m well aware of Tyler Perry’s struggles of getting his shows produced here as well as his film career, but it’s just so horrifying to read that it’s almost an expected part of discrimination. It also makes me think of the huge controversy that’s going on about that Avatar movie (The Last Airbender??). It’s maddening to see progress in the oldest institution in America – politics – and absolutely none in entertainment. Just because “Slumdog” got a lot of acclaim doesn’t mean Hollywood has fixed its racist problems.

  71. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    You keep shifting the grounds of the debate, Jess, but I’m still not buying it.

    True, medical shows had been successful before. But the execs hesitated about “ER.” They didn’t believe it could succeed–despite the history of successful medical shows and advertisers willing to pay for them. That belies your claims of rational decision-making in the industry.

    True, cop shows have always drawn advertisers and been successful. So why not produce cop shows with black, Asian, and Latino leads? If they’re almost guaranteed to succeed, there’s no reason not to take a chance with minority-based versions. Keep producing shows like “Castle,” “Southland,” and “The Unusuals” to appease advertisers, but put minorities in the main roles.

    If the networks are looking to replicate past successes…well, “Julia,” “Sanford and Son,” “The Jeffersons,” “Good Times,” “Roots,” “The Cosby Show,” “A Different World,” “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,” “In Living Color,” etc. proved the market for black-themed TV shows. I don’t know which advertisers advertised on these shows, but SOMEONE advertised on them and kept them in the money. With this track record, therefore, why aren’t CBS, NBC, and ABC producing several black-themed shows every year?

  72. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    P.S. thebiblophile asked about “28 Days,” not “28 Days Later,” Pheagan. I answered accordingly.

  73. Jess wrote:

    @Rob Schmidt–

    Maybe a better way to think about it is like the second law of thermodynamics.

    Huh? You say. The 2nd law says that over time, entropy increases — but more than that, it’s a statistical statement. That is, you can decrease entropy in a localized area (by doing work — and that means work in the physics-book sense, applying force over a distance). But overall, we can say a group of molecules of a gas, say, bouncing around are going to move a certain way. So while I can’t say what will happen to an individual molecule, I can say what will happen in aggregate.

    In a similar vein, studio execs might love to have the next Tyler Perry. But they know/think they will have a better chance with something else. This isn’t necessarily always true. But it’s true enough times (and enough folks got burned) that they are wary of it.

    The hesitation on ER was for reasons surrounding that individual production — who the leads were and stuff like that. Let’s not forget that in 1993 George Clooney was a B-lister at best. Anthony Edwards as a lead? “Puh-lease,” you would have heard them say. “He’s a nebbish. We can’t have that kind of guy as the lead.” Edwards’ ability as an actor proved that wrong.

    Black-themed stuff does get financed — just in a very narrow way. That’s precisely why you get stuff that fits a sit-com format, generally speaking. (Think about it — most of the successful black-themed shows are sit-coms. There is a reason for that).

    You asked about minority characters on cop shows, by the way — remember New York Undercover?

    So why aren’t they banging the doors down for the next Tyler Perry? Because Tyler showed he can make money, but it isn’t clear that he isn’t a one-off phenomenon, not in the minds of an executive.

    And you asked why they don’t do minority-themed (or casted) stuff using the more successful ones to finance them? That would be the principled thing to do. But it makes no money (or rather, isn’t guaranteed to do so). There is no morality here. If you expect a capitalist enterprise to do the right thing without basically being either blackmailed or forced by the profit motive, I have a bridge you might want to see.

    I am not endorsing this — read it again, I am not saying this is correct or even good for the business long term but it’s the way moneymakers think and they are looking at the next quarter, not the next year.

    It isn’t all about the money, but it’s a damned big part of it. That’s why, to answer Rob Schmidt’s original query, a group of people that is liberal in the trenches seems so conservative in the execution.

    Look again at the money flows: I am in an industry with people willing to work for free, where I pay no benefits (or very few) and can make huge returns on investment. And nobody is going to say anything about anti-discrimination laws because they aren’t in a position to do it. More importantly, the avenues to work are an oligopoly controlled by a very small group.

    Surplus of people that want to work + small number of employers + a lot of freedom in how you treat workers

    In that environment, the stuff I described is perfectly rational.

    I’m not saying racism plays no part– just that the structure of the industry can reinforce those things. And changing the economics of Hollywood has to be a big part of any strategy to address it.

    As demographics change in the US all this stuff might alter, by the way. Profits will win in that sense, but not because it is the right thing to do. Because it will be the profitable thing to do.

    Tyler Perry makes money. But he’s small potatoes. Let’s say he’s responsible for half of Lionsgate’s revenue. That’s about $400 million his movies bring in (2007) Wow, you say.

    Time Warner’s revenue was $46 billion. So a Tyler Perry would be 1% of that. One Percent. NBC Universal took in $15 billion, and Viacom took in $13 billion. So Perry’s big – but not that big.

  74. elle the elephant wrote:

    @Rob Smidt

    I agree with you in how the economic system of Hollywood works,in that it is anti-democratic,corporatist and racist. If the “invisible hand of the market” works as Jess claims, why isn’t their a proportional market for Asians,Latinos,Middle Easterners etc. ? Because they consiously don’t want the money of people of color, and they don’t care how much money Lionsgates can makes, or Tyler Perry, because they see them as threats to the white power structure in Hollywood. They only care about white peoples money.
    The problem is that people like Jess,and many other people that believe in the power of the free market, think that humans are rational and that the free market is democratic. Humans are not rational, they are irrational and do things based more on emotions, not logic. The Business world, as well as politics, are great examples of how emotions over logic dominates. The free market is not democratic, the people who have the power will always have the power and write the rules, the people at the bottom will remain at the bottom. If free market work the way its defenders said it worked, wage stagnation would have never happened in this nation,the poverty and unemployment rate would have never increased,third-world nations would be way better off,but instead, free market ideology has been a disaster for every nation it has ever been implemented in. Mexico with NAFTA saw an increase in poverty,as did Argentina,Chile,El Salvador,Nicaragua, and countless other Latin American nations that embrace free trade economics. I know I’m going off track,but, I feel I need to say this because even among the most liberal Americans , there tends to be this disturbing tendency to accept capitalism and the establishment as perfect in every way, and look at everything from a purely rationalistic stand point, not realising what part morality plays in decision making.
    Also, in response to Rob Smidt’s question about the dearth of non-white leads in cop shows you mention New York Undercover? Please, that show was only on the air for 4 years, and eventually pulled off because it couldn’t get enough white viewers. Compare that to Law & Order and its spin-offs, NYPD Blue, The Shield, Hillstreet Blue,the forensic shows, and you will see that New York Undercover was a token show, that was made to get mostly white teens into hip-hop, not Black and Brown.

  75. NancyP wrote:

    One thing that hasn’t been discussed is the large international market for Hollywood movies.

    Pheagan #54 This movie wasn’t produced by people with obvious Asian names, but otherwise it is a non-martial arts, non-”mystic East” movie with plausible modern characters.

    Saving Face (2005) dir. Alice Wu, actor Joan Chen is probably the best known, all main characters are Chinese, setting is NYC (Queens Chinese business district and residential street, and some unspecified Manhattan locations).

  76. Afro-chan wrote:

    I have a question for those on work in the film industry or have some connection to it. Is it viable to go abroad and get established in another country first before tackling Hollywood? Or possibly get noticed from overseas work? From what I’m reading it doesn’t seem like it could be anymore difficult.

  77. Afro-chan wrote:

    Excuse my grammar in the previous post. I am sneaking and typing at work.

  78. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    “So while I can’t say what will happen to an individual molecule, I can say what will happen in aggregate.”

    And I can say WHY it happens in aggregate: because Hollywood executives make irrational decisions based on racial prejudice. As the Fade In article indicates. They exclude minority-based shows like “Ugly Betty” that could succeed and instead put on cop and medical shows with white leads.

    Your basic premise seems to be that the studios imitate past successes. Okay, so “Ugly Betty” has proved the audience for young minority actresses. Advertisers now understand what products to market in the “Ugly Betty” niche. So where’s the “Ugly Betty” knockoff starring a young black or Asian or American Indian actress?

    “In a similar vein, studio execs might love to have the next Tyler Perry. But they know/think they will have a better chance with something else.”

    In other words, Hollywood executives make irrational decisions based on racial prejudice. Looking for the next Tyler Perry would be the rational thing to do. Or the next America Ferrera, Dev Patel, Susan Boyle, Masi Oka, et al. In other words, someone who doesn’t fit the beautiful WASP mold but will generate profits for them.

    “The hesitation on ER was for reasons surrounding that individual production—who the leads were and stuff like that.”

    No, it was mostly because of the frenetic pace and style. But whatever the reason, “ER” contradicts your claim that medical shows are a surefire road to success.

    Besides, which previous medical shows had big-name stars that guaranteed their success? Not “St. Elsewhere,” which you gave as an example. And not “Hill St. Blues,” your other example, in the cop-show genre. Not the “Law & Order” or “CSI” franchises either. These shows succeeded without big-name stars just as minority-led shows could do.

    “Black-themed stuff does get financed — just in a very narrow way.”

    Not by the big three networks. Not in proportion to their past successes. Again, an example of irrational decision-making.

    “You asked about minority characters on cop shows, by the way — remember New York Undercover?”

    No, I don’t, which kind of proves my point.

    “That would be the principled thing to do. But it makes no money (or rather, isn’t guaranteed to do so).”

    Nothing is guaranteed to make money in TV. See my previous point about the majority of shows failing. Feel free to start addressing it.

    You’ve claimed the networks have some sort of tested formula for creating successful shows. What is this formula again? How can it be a formula when so many shows keep failing? And why doesn’t it apply to cop or medical shows with minority leads?

    “There is no morality here.”

    I never said there was. I suggested there’s factual evidence that minority-themed movies and TV shows can and do succeed. The question is why Hollywood is ignoring this evidence while others are profiting from it.

    “As demographics change in the US all this stuff might alter, by the way.”

    The demographics have already changed. The US is now something like 30% minority. How many movies have minority leads to reflect this? Fewer than 5%?

    And when the US is more than 50% minority, as it’ll be in 25-30 years…then what? Hollywood will increase the proportion of minority-based movies from 5% to 10%? No, thanks…I want parity now.

    And again, this isn’t just a moral position. It’s a rational, bottom-line position. “Slumdog Millionaire” has made money because Hollywood execs are too biased to see the profits in front of their faces.

  79. Pheagan wrote:

    @ Nancy P– Haven’t heard of it, but I’ll check it out.

  80. Lxy wrote:

    1) White liberals and conservatives often aren’t in the same socioeconomic class. Liberals = lower and conservatives = upper.

    What support do you have for this assertion that Liberals are supposedly in the lower socio-economic class?

    Would _NY Times_ readers (a leading mouthpiece of the US liberal establishment) be considered in the “lower class”?

    What about George Soros, billionaire financial speculator and key financial sponsor of MoveOn.org?

    And one of the interesting things about the recent 2008 election is that Wall Street and American finance capitalism actually gave more in campaign contributions to *Barack Obama* than they gave to John McCain.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/06/30/2008-06-30_barack_obama_has_collected_nearly_twice_-2.html

    This throws into question the popular idea that Conservatives are the ONLY party of Big Business and Wall Street. The Liberals are also.

    2) White conservatives have held most of the political power for the last few decades. They’ve made the key decisions, not liberals.

    What about the Democrats holding power during the Clinton regime?

    It should be remembered that it was under Clinton that the 1995 Crime Bill was enacted, a bill that has had a disproportionatelly negative impact on minorities.

    Or the fact that Liberal Democrats have aided, abetted, and supported key decisions of the Bush regime such as the thinly disguised anti-Arab/Muslim “War against Terrorism”?

    Indeed, this trend continues under the Obama regime, particularly with America’s Terror War.

    3) White conservatives dominate in other powerful institutions, particularly business.

    In short, if you think white liberals and conservatives exercise equal power over minorities, I’d say you’re mistaken.

    In addition, I referred to studies that show liberals are more tolerant and openminded. Your opinion that an abstract power structure negates these studies is just that…your opinion. If you have any empirical evidence that liberals are as racist as conservatives, by all means provide it.

    Your angry defense of White Liberalism misses the point.

    In terms of race, Liberalism differs from Conservativism in terms of the TACTICS that it uses to maintain White dominance and power.

    And your studies about racial attitudes are beside the point. Being “tolerant” or “openminded” are not antithetical to maintaining White racial hegemony.

    To use the example above, being “tolerant” of minorities is analogous to playing the political Good Cop.

    Thus, for instance, American Liberalism’s response to the racial rebellions of the 1960s and 1970s (i.e. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs) differed from the Conservative “Law and Order” response only in terms of the methods used to advance the same underlying agenda: maintaining White dominance in particular and America’s racialist caste system in general–albeit with a more diverse veneer.

    Liberals favor co-opting minority elites into a white-dominated American system (this is called “promoting diversity”), while Conservatives somewhat disfavor this tactic.

    In general, Liberals and Conservatives essentially represent different political factions of the American Empire.

    They may differ in terms of tactics, in rhetoric, in political mask.

    But ultimately, they all believe in the American Empire.

    So too in terms of race, there is the Right hand of White Supremacy, and then there is the Left hand….

  81. atlasien wrote:

    @lxy: I’m not arguing that liberals are antiracist or even not racist. I’m just saying that in general, liberalism is neutral when it comes to racism, while conservatism actively encourages it, and in fact, couldn’t live without it.

    Liberalism is frequently racist, but it’s possible for it to be propounded without racism. You can’t say the same thing for conservatism.

    Let’s look at the historical facts. Under which administrations have people of color made their greatest legal and economic advances? These advances weren’t granted by white people, they were demanded and fought for by people of color… but the fight was a lot more successful in some environments than in others.

    If I had a choice between living after the Johnson administration changes versus before, I would choose “after” in a heartbeat. There were huge differences. The increasing legality of interracial marriage. Getting rid of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the “whites-only” immigration policy that had been in effect for two thirds of the century. Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. Less suppression of voter rights. The entire makeup of America would be radically different (and worse) without this period.

    “They’re all the same” is easy to say but hard to back up.

  82. cocolamala wrote:

    on the question of liberals failing at antiracism:

    the issue of blaming african americans for the failure of prop 8 came from “liberal” voices in the lgbtq community

    people like dan savage (a super liberal sex advice columnist) wanted to place the blame on black californians, but weren’t interested in hearing the apt critique about lgtbq community’s failure to campaign for their political goals within the black community

  83. cocolamala wrote:

    also, historically, the civil rights fight has been fought on both the republican and democratic sides. pre 1960s, southern democrats were arguing for segregation. the south turned republican as it saw the political value in racims.

    (this is a loose, loose summation)

  84. Whit wrote:

    @ Oscar, you are completely right about the same set of celebrities in heavy rotation in Hollywood. I was lucky enough to have a talented black actress/acting coach stay with her sister, my roommate, this summer. She said that a friend and student of hers keeps auditioning for roles in big movies like X-Files, and losing out to Xzibit.

    That movie was like, the 3rd or 4th time he’d gotten a call back about a role and hired for it, only to hear before filming starts, that Xzibit will be getting the role instead. There’s good talent out there, but they can’t break in as easily as whites, because there are only so many token minority slots to go around, and the industry would prefer to fill them with already recognized names.

  85. Jehanzeb wrote:

    This is a late comment, but I just wanted to say that I really appreciate this post. Lately, I’ve found it difficult to enjoy most Hollywood movies because I can’t ignore how ethnocentric they are. Minority actors are always limited to stereotypical roles.

    To read about how this kind of racism and bigotry exists behind the scenes is even more discouraging. It’s all about selling tickets and making money. People can complain about producers ruining movies based on comic books and video games, but not much attention is given to screenwriters who are people of color and face challenges because of the stories they want to tell.

    The producer who made the sexist comments is full of it. There were quite a few female filmmakers in my film class.

    I used to want to work in Hollywood too, but now I could care less. That’s why I make my own independent films with my low-budget crew. The digital age is opening a lot of doors for aspiring filmmakers and I think it creates great opportunities for people of color to get their work out there.

  86. cocolamala wrote:

    because are only so many token minority slots to go around

    but we need as many lindsay lohans, miley cyruses (and hanna montanas), and jamie lynn spears, and ashlee simpsons as the market can bear….

    god forbid, if tyra banks and naomi campbell should walk down a runway in the same show (or even in the same season).

    help us, if thandiwe newton and halley berry show up in the same coffee shop and want to order a latte to go.

  87. sfsinger wrote:

    Ok so now that everyone feels outraged, depressed and hopeless can we come up some solutions, a course of action and alternatives so that we can start to chip away at this steadily?

  88. RCHOUDH wrote:

    Like everyone else here, I wasn’t the least bit surprised to read about the backstage racist/sexist shenanigans going on in Hollywood.

    And I’d just like to say I appreciate all the opinions everyone’s given as to why they believe Hollywood is the way it is. For myself I believe that it’s all a combination of the “perceived bottom line” that execs believe white majority movies/shows can successfully produce (what Jess was alluding to) and also a non written discriminatory policy to keep women and minorities away from attaining higher ranks in Hollywood (what Rob was alluding to).

    And I do think Hollywood is “liberal” in the sense that like the 60’s Hippies/today’s Hipster racists, it doesn’t mind appropriating the cultures of minority characters in order to create window dressing for its overwhelmingly white stories. But God forbid they should have to next delve deeper into these characters’ storylines! That’d be too much work and besides is it really profitable?/sarcasm.
    Likewise they’re also liberal in the sense that they don’t mind presenting exceptional women’s stories presented from a woman’s point of view from time to time. But it’s seen as being more profitable to have actresses look and act sexy for the camera rather than playing complex characters who just happen to be female!
    As for this idea of following a formula for economic success, I don’t know whether such a formula exists. And even if it were to exist, I don’t think Hollywood execs follow it religiously. Otherwise as Rob has mentioned you would have seen more minority themed shows/movies already.

  89. Michelle wrote:

    To the person who asked about going over seas, I think the answer would be no. I don’t think you could go overseas and translate that success into a Hollywood career. Antonio Banderas, Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz (to name a few) were all huge in their countries before coming over here to work. There is an actress names Samantha Muluumba who is considered a “name” in Hollywood circles. Apparently she was a big pop star in Ireland, but nobody knows who she is in America.

    I was just talking to a woman who was up for a part in a sit com with two Black male leads. They were already set in the show. She auditions. At the end of the week, they call her agents to tell them that they would make an official offer on Monday. Congrats to her. By Tuesday she was told that the network didn’t want to hire her because it would make it a Black show and the network didn’t want a Black show. So they cast a White woman in the part. And thank you Rob! If it was about money, and doing what works, uh, duh Black comedies are proven, PROVEN, they make money! AND THERE AREN’T ANY BLACK COMEDIES ON MAJOR NETWORK TV!!!!!!!!! In NO OTHER profession on industry can you blatantly say, we can’t hire a Black woman because then it would be a too many Black people and therefore a Black show.

    By the way I am in the industry, and when I am watching TV, I see TONS of commercials with Black people in them. TONS! Sometimes they are the lead, and sometimes they are in the cast, but I see TONS! And I see them during all times and all shows. So someone explain that. Oh, I get it ad execs are just being nice and being true liberals cause who cares about a few million dollars that black people spend.

    I beg to differ, Jen. I don’t think that you put forth the most accurate depiction of a winning business model. Maytag, for instance, in interested in one thing. When you think washing machine, you think Maytag. And they want everyone to think that. So they are asking themselves, how do we break down this market, this huge thing called a market, into manageable chucks? We look at Latino, Blacks, White women under forty, White women over forty, White men who buy washing machines for their mothers, etc. Billions of dollars goes into marketing research and execution, only to have the end result be a bunch of curly headed Black women in commercials selling everything from Pam, to yogurt, to coffee, to Pine-Sol, to Ikea furniture, to Downey to Hamburger Helper. That is the bottom line. Because if Black people, Black women, were such a financial risk, why are we still selling White people shit on TV?

    Oh and you mentioned NBC Universal and how Tyler Perry is a drop in the bucket for their profit margin. Well, so is their entire television and film department. NBC Universal owes so much crap that you can’t even possibly make that argument.

  90. Lxy wrote:

    “They’re all the same” is easy to say but hard to back up.

    But that’s not quite what I said. It’s not a question of being the same or identical.

    It’s a question of representing *different factions* within a broader system: White Supremacy.

    In general, there is often a political division of labor between Liberals and Conservatives in the American Empire.

    Morever, many of the “gains” of the 1960s and 1970s were granted by the American establishment in order to pacify rebellion by implementing various reformist measures to politically split middle-class minority elites from those who were working class/poor.

    Juan Santos talks about the history of this strategy:

    “What the white ruling class did here was this: following the mass rebellions and the burning of major US cities in the 1960s, the white ruling class decided on a strategy of divide and conquer. They created a Black middle class almost overnight, largely using government employment to do so, while at the same time they found another way to deal with the millions of people of color who could not fit into the system; mass imprisonment.

    http://the-fourth-world.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-king-and-kennedy-empire-and-end.html

    I think these advances thus had less to do with what American regime in power (whether Liberal Democrat or Conservative Republican) than they were a product of the times.

    It should be recalled that while JFK and Lyndon Johnson have been given credit for officially creating Affirmative Action by various executive orders, it was Richard Nixon who expanded it significantly in 1969 with the first formal employment “quotas” for the hiring of minorities.

  91. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/kansas.pdf

    Averaging over this period, Democratic presidential candidates garnered 46% of the votes of whites in the bottom third of the income distribution, 47% of those in the middle third, and 42% of those in the upper third.

    http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/red_state_blue_state_revised.pdf

    For decades, the Democrats have been viewed as the party of the poor, with the Republicans representing the rich.

    Survey data show a small but persistent correlation between income and support for the Republican party.

    http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/03/voting_and_income_in_the_us_and_europe.php

    As you can see, it’s generally true that in Western Europe, as in the United States, being rich seems to make you favorable to parties of the right.

    http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2005/09/more_on_voting_1.html

    [L]et me just say that all the evidence shows that the richer voters support the Republicans and the poorer voters support the Democrats.

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/how-did-white-people-vote.html

    How Did White People Vote?

  92. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Re “What about the Democrats holding power during the Clinton regime?” Democrats have held the presidency 12 of the last 40 years (excluding 2009). During most of those years, conservatives controlled Congress or the Supreme Court or both. Hence my statement that white conservatives have held most of the political power for the last few decades.

    I haven’t said that white liberals are perfectly liberal. That they don’t support the conservative power structure at times. But the fact is that conservatives have made the key decisions, not liberals.

    The so-called war on terrorism proves my point, not yours. Liberals acquiesced to a decision made by Bush and his Cabinet members using false or misleading intel. They didn’t decide this independently, they “decided” it after conservatives made the decision to go to war and manipulated the country into agreeing with them.

    Re “Your angry defense of White Liberalism misses the point”: No, your angry attacks on white liberalism miss the point. Therefore, I’ll repeat it: Your opinion that an abstract power structure negates these studies is just that…your opinion. I’m waiting for the data that contradicts these studies–that shows liberals are as racist as conservatives. Until I see it, I dispute the basic premise of your argument.

    Re “It’s a question of representing *different factions* within a broader system: White Supremacy.”

    That white liberals believe in and encourage a broader system of white supremacy is easy to say but hard to back up. As far as I can tell, this “system” you keep talking about is a theoretical construct. When you have hard data that it exists and that liberals support it as much as conservatives do, please provide it.

    You’re wasting time giving isolated examples of liberals supporting conservative positions, especially from the ancient ’60s and ’70s. I could list a thousand cases where white liberals didn’t support conservative positions–in fact, where they disagreed with them vehemently. Overall the evidence proves my case, not yours.

  93. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    As atlasien indicated, Lxy, it’s easy to say white liberals aren’t as liberal as they should be. And that that “proves” they’re racists who are conspiring to keep minorities in their place. It’s always easy to imagine conspiracies and difficult to disprove them.

    But give us some examples of what you think white liberals should be doing to fight the “white supremacy” system. Electing minorities to high office, raising taxes on the rich, ending the war in Iraq, or what, exactly? Then we can discuss whether white liberals are doing them or not.

  94. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    MOD NOTE –

    This thread is about racism in Hollywood, not politics. Any further comments in this vein will be deleted.

  95. Chris H wrote:

    This article makes me depressed. Mostly because I have a friend who wants to be a director, but as a Hispanic woman has has basically no chance.

  96. Michelle wrote:

    Chris H!

    Not so! There are tons of Hispanics that have been able to EXTRAORDINARILY well in Hollywood, and there is a lot of respect for Hispanics (Latinos) in the business. The Oscars these past few years have been nicely represented by Latinos who are receiving both critical and financial acclaim and success. Tell her to go forth!

  97. thebiblophile wrote:

    Just to clarify, I mistyped, it should have been “28 Days Later,” as phaegan said. The film is set is the UK and features a relatively small cast, trying to survive after a “anger” virus decimates the UK. There is a Black womyn, a white man, and later in the film a white father and daughter, and multi-ethnic group of soldiers.

    I was interested in the films listed (Something New, Doubt, 26 Days Later, Kill Bill, Benjamin Button) is just a general interest on my part about what others thought about these films. @ Rob Schmidt, it was intended as any test – I’m just genuinely curious about what others thoughts on the films/wanted to learn about others viewpoints…and about the possibility for critical race and gender analysis of films, especially those that do in fact feature POC. How did those films come to have POC? Just because they have POC can we trust the representations (here I’m thinking about Monster’s Ball)? When POC are represented in what ways in the film complicated? What abou the popularity of cult classics, like “28 Days Later,” that feature Black womyn prominently?

    I’m learning a lot about the economics of the industry from those contributing their viewpoints/perspectives/knowledge. Thanks!

  98. Queworld wrote:

    TO all the young filmmakers, writers, producers, directors; I find myself in a bit of a pinch often at work when people begin to talk about race and gender and politics. I have been on countless sets in and around nyc..I am a cameraman and when you are the only person of color, and not a parking PA or a regular PA, people don’t know how to categorize me. I am not the average black guy, they say,.. I am different…which is crazy, because just five minutes ago, the actor asked me for an umbrella because it was raining outside and he said he needed to be escorted to his trailer. After looking at him and saying, hey thats not my job, but let me point to someone that might be able to help you. Now, I point and the person is white to his misfortune, because he then proceeds to say to me, wait, aren’t you a PA why are you sending me to another PA…. I then say I am not, I am the cameraman….now, what box can you put me in…. He never apologizes, just makes a stupid comment and moves on. So, where do you fit, what do you say in a business where cameraman and women of color almost never exist. I can count on one hand the amount that i have encountered in all the years I have been in the business. I heard of one show in nyc that has 3 black camera guys and that is at least one third of the existing black camera workers in the union in nyc. There is something wrong with that. It is not becaue we don’t want these jobs, or we are not qualified to do them, it is just they assume we all want to be the next Spike Lee and he has already filled that spot. So, we have to be grateful for what we have been given and get told you should be proud, you made it. I have yet to arrive, the day I arrive is when I am shooting a movie filled with all kinds of people from gender to race to political ideas. I like Spike, but he is not what I aspire too. I respect what he does on his sets, trying to hire mostly brown faces. I hear the white workers complain about him because he does this, yet they do it without thinking. It also means, we are gaining access to the wealth that should only be there’s. When i started at the bottom, my “white bosses” had no issue with me because I wasn’t threatening. Now, I am running the department and have to prove that i know what I am doing on a daily basis. We are always under that microscope. So, with that, don’t stop wanting to be what you want to be despite the fights, the attitudes, the racism, for if we don’t fight through it, we will continue to not see ourselves on the screen. I will fight all the way through, and the way to get them to notice us as always is to be better than the OBSESSED style movies and the court jesters and yes men out there that make the no man’s job harder. I got into a huge fight with a producer that said that when i walked next to him to get him to listen and look me in the eye like A “MAN” and he couldn’t do it. He proceeded to tell his other producer colleagues that I was very hostile and he is thinking of firing me. He felt threatened for his life he said… Now, I am intelligent, well mannered, yet I am not immune to racism and when it smells like shit, we all know it is shit. My wife, who sees things differently understood that I just bit the head off the lifeline. I flatlined basically because we all work as freelancers and I just jeopardized my families well being. In a tough situation, we still can’t let the street come out In the end, we will always lose when those to defend us don’t look like us. I had to come up with an apology that worked and fast. I did, but it was only to keep the peace and finish the job i started. The funny thing was all the hype around OBAMA was looming and with all the black jokes and all the chicken in the white house you can eat, they were ready to roast. One person said, hey, don’t you start getting comfortable and feeling like things are going to change just because we have a black president. It is amazing that they feel comfortable enough to just blurt it out and keep it moving. We need to control the studios or what ever happened to all the black folks and latinos and asians getting together and start a studio that is not putting out knee slappers and the like. . we are intelligent beings with many great ideas. the great ideas will change the lives of our youths, not the box office. RIGHT ON BROWN PEOPLE RIGHT ON

  99. Adrianna wrote:

    @ Sarah what are those venues? I’m really curious. the business side really intrigues me. That is why I really wonder how Tyler Perry is doing it. and how he built that core audience. I think that is what other people of color filmmaker need to to do so we don’t rely to much on Hollywood. Maybe we need more POC following TP”s financial model and open our own studios. too. then we can exist outside hollywood. Plus their creativity and clout is waning all they do now is remakes of much better foreign movies .

    I use to worked for a nonprofit media company And Had the chance to interview Robert Altman before he passed and I asked him how he worked in Hollywood since his movies did not make that much money and are considered art house or indies and he smiled and said . I live in NY and Hollywood is like this whole other land that I don’t deal with ( I’m paraphrasing here i have to see the footage again.)

    I think Hollywood suck , but so does a lot of foreign movies market they have their own racial and gender and drama. I grew up on french movies and I see the same thing except the french have lot more women behind and in front of the camera and there isn’t the ageism that seems to disqualify women from acting like they do in Hollywood, But when it come to dealing with race forget about it same crap . That is why Matthieu Kassanovitz “La Haine” was so avant garde for them. Like some of you said , Kassanovitz had to tell the french audience that is movie wasn’t a visit to the zoo or on How to speak Banlieu. Latin America has also huge racial problem, especially on their TV it’s Lilly white even more so than the US Their cinema has gotten a more interesting. As for Bollywood I ‘m told that most Indian actors are light skin and that there isn’t lot’s of darker hued Indian on screen. Britain follows same formula as Hollywood when it come to race That is why many British actor of color leave for America since they don’t get much work. I read it in article I forget which one. The British columnist was asking to have those actors back.

    And Slumdog was going direct to DVD , but was saved from this fate by Fox searchlight. Which means that if hadn’t gone to theaters and did go direct to DVD Good bey to all those Oscars and golden globes. These institution are even more worthless about predicting quality movies after all that garbage movies crash won best picture. So now imagine all the garbage movies that get promoted my these “awards” No wonder the European started their own academy.

  100. Genevieve wrote:

    It really annoys me that people think everyone only likes watching movies about themselves–I know what my life looks like, I’m living it. Please show me something interesting, something that’s not “mine.” Probably why my favorite movie (Deepa Mehta’s film Water) is a movie about Indians, directed by an Indian, with an Indian cast, in Hindi.
    I’m guessing I’m not the only one who feels like this, but the Hollywood industry types are so narcissistic that they’re selling everyone else short.

  101. dem wrote:

    Take your money elsewhere. There is bollywood, nollywood, japanese film industry, if you want something else there is a huge range of media you can watch. Yes, Hollywood is mostly white, but bollywood is mostly indian, nollywood mostly black, and japanese cinema mostly japanese. Something for everyone if you spend some time looking.

  102. dem wrote:

    @Rob – If you look at the states that are blue you will notice they are all the highest income states. New Jersey has one of the highest incomes in the world (and is number in the US) and is also a very liberal state. Liberals are, in general, well educated and pretty rich.

  103. Ben wrote:

    Well said dem. With masterpieces like Fullmetal Alchemist and Ghost in the Shell, I’m giving the Japanese my money.

  104. Stephen wrote:

    I’ve been watching the career of a new actress I recently spotted in Towelhead and another movie, called Crossing Over. Beautiful girl and talented, she was even nominated for a Spirit award for her performance in Towelhead. I’ve been hoping to see her in another film and have anxiously been scanning Variety and IMdb and nothing. This beautiful talented American girl can’t seem to get a part, why? Basically because she’s a wonderful American mix, a little German, Scottish, French, Mexican and East Indian, (IMDB source) I’ve seen so many movies crying out for good young actresses I for one would love to see a movie with a young actress that actually knows her craft, but I guess it’s to ethnic for Hollywood. Take a look at what American looks like now Hollywood, in 10 years every child under 5 will be Hispanic or a mix. Times are changing why not jump at the chance and change the world for the better. Every role doesn’t have to be rewritten to explain why someone looks different. We go to work and school everyday with those people.

  105. CKR wrote:

    Hate to post on a article written some months ago, but I wanted to say this was very informative and revealing.
    Honestly, I’m someone who has many interests. The two main ones are writing and acting. In a way I’ve gone back and forth in trying to seriously think of pursuing a career in either. Mainly b/c of articles like these and other truths that come out-lol. It can be really discouraging.
    Yet, at the same time, I feel it is really important to follow through with my goals BECAUSE of truths like this. If no one challenges it or goes against the grain then it will continue to happen. People of color, especially blacks, have paved the way so much from what it was back in day when it comes to Hollywood and entertainment. They had a hard road to follow but made a decision to do it and their blood, sweat, and tears is what paved the road for the rest of us to come. Thing is, the struggle isn’t over. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight for it. We kind of owe it to those before us to keep pushing.