Notes from AFF’s Diversity On Screen panel
by Guest Contributor jbrotherlove, originally published at jbrotherlove
I haven’t been a very good cinephile lately. And by “not very good” I mean I haven’t attended any films in this year’s Atlanta Film Festival. In addition to being very busy at work in the past few weeks, I attribute the oversight to a combination of procrastination, lack of Atlanta friends who are passionate about independent film (Boo!), and confusion over my AFF membership status (holla at a brother, Charles).
However, I did manage to get over to the newish Starbucks in Midtown Promenade (off Piedmont Park) to attend the festival’s Diversity On Screen panel, part of their Coffeehouse Conversations series. The panel was moderated by journalist and author Gil Robertson. Author Ronda Racha Penrice, Felicia Feaster (The Atlantan), Ryan Lee (Southern Voice), and Will Hong (TurnerAsia) rounded out the panel.
In general, the panel agreed that the state of diversity in film (race, sexual orientation, gender, age, etc.) is improving. But film lags far behind television and digital/internet in terms of portraying characters and stories with complexity (Hong). Penrice added that film classics could be carried by actresses such as Joan Crawford or Bette Davis. Today, despite women becoming stronger forces in society, roles in Hollywood films have gotten weaker. The roles that do center around women are often labeled “chick flicks,” a practice that discredits interest by other audiences (Feaster).
There was discussion about a lack of resources such as financial and distribution. The panel agreed that the need to make money hampers stakeholder’s desire to takes risks. But there doesn’t seem to be an actual lack of diversified talent (Feaster). Lee mentioned that the pool of decision makers need to be diversified (for example, more LGBT executives) in order for things to change. Penrice pointed out that even when decisions makers are gay, they are often out personally (attending public events with their partner) but when it comes to professional decisions, they don’t want to be viewed that way.
Instead, Hollywood bets on the “sure thing,” even when that yields actors playing ethnic roles improperly (often a sore spot with the Asian community). Lee stated that including gay or black characters isn’t always a good thing because they are often added for diversity window dressing without any depth or backstory.
Robertson suggested audiences need to get to a point where we tell filmmakers if they cannot attain a certain standard in depicting us, then maybe they don’t need to show us onscreen at all. [Note: I love that Robertson said that! The mentality that I should support stereotypes or crap just because black or gay people are in it doesn't fly with me.]
Hong believes it’s everybody’s role to travel outside of their comfort zone and immerse themselves in other communities to learn about each other. He confessed he doesn’t do it enough himself. Robertson agreed that we profess change but may not be ready for it in actuality. He admitted that his Facebook page is 98% African American although he attends all kinds of events and travels internationally.
Unlike Hollywood films, the panel didn’t reach a neat “solution”, per se. But I think it woke up some people in terms of what we consider to be diverse in terms of film and how we challenge ourselves (or don’t) to explore lives and cultures outside of what we already know.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Shadow And Act wrote:
Ho-hum… same ol’, same ol’, as they say. I’ve been to enough of these panels and had so many of these discussions that they all start to blend into one another. I’m not necessarily looking for “neatly packaged solutions,” but rather more action and much less chatter. In my experience, the tendency is to do more of the latter than the former.
I think we all know what the film industry needs more of to achieve some harmony in diversity. – whether it’s that “the pool of decision makers needs to be diversified” (well, sure), or that “it’s everybody’s role to travel outside of their comfort zone and immerse themselves in other communities to learn about each other” (of course). These, and everything else that was presented as a solution, are things we’ve been saying for the past 100 years, since D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of A Nation.”
Where do we go from there…? Next year, there’ll be other panels having the same discussion, positing similar solutions, and we’ll dissect each one, but then , we actually seem to regress instead of progress, as the above notes indicated about the star power of female stars.
Excuse me if I sound a tad disillusioned… I’m a filmmaker and have been working independently for a number of years; I hear the same stories over and over, and after awhile, it all becomes monotonous, and loses effect.
Posted 29 May 2009 at 8:45 am ¶
prvlgd cdn wrote:
I think one additional institutional barrier w/r/t Hollywood films is that the scripts are almost always built on a hero’s journey structure in which (from what I gather from afar–based on some community college night school screenwriting courses, so you know… grain of salt) the protagonist is the only real or important character, and every other character only properly exists to challenge or illuminate him or her.
I’d think that means execs are more likely to view a script with a black protagonist (which is distinct from a story written as, say, a Will Smith project) as a … “black interest” project.
It also means screen time spent fleshing out a supporting character, “diverse” or not, is viewed as time wasted, unless that fleshing out has direct impact on the protagonist.
Democratization of production and distribution through new technologies is more likely to change available content than any changes in Hollywood are.
Posted 29 May 2009 at 9:41 am ¶
MissZ87 wrote:
I agree with Post #1….I feel like that has been American culture for the past 150 years. We talk alot but nothing in actuality is being done. Its been the American way to talk around the issues, but never hitting the bulls eye because it is all much too sensitive and painful for minorities and just plain shocking for White people cause they don’t realize the affects of white privilege; which inevitably leads to their denial and then we are back where we started all over again.
While true that there needs to be more minority execs green lighting films there also needs to be an openness from the white masses. What I mean by that is an interest in seeing the real lives of minority people on film, not just a Madea part X. But actual truth; basically a multi-dimensional representation. I’ve realized that if minority people don’t fit into that box that has been created by the racist imagination; the white masses aren’t necessarily interested (unless there is a white protagonist leading the film, i.e Blood Diamond or The Last Smaurai).
Posted 29 May 2009 at 11:36 am ¶
Gaston wrote:
A very relevant editorial/survey you folks might find pertinent to this specific discussion and others:
“Time to put up or shut up – harnessing our collective resources to produce and distribute the kind of variety in “black cinema” that many of us have been crying for” – http://www.shadowandact.com/?p=3621
Posted 29 May 2009 at 1:15 pm ¶
jbrotherlove wrote:
I these discussions seem to happen often without much (perceived) change. I’d argue that the discussions are still important to have although, we need to speak to more than just the choir.
Financial viability is a real concern; producers want “sure things”. I believe as video becomes increasingly less expensive to create – and financial risk decreases – we will see more diverse stories, especially on the web.
As for personal responsibility, I regularly challenge my perspectives by watching movies outside of my “comfort zone” (which I’ll admit is fairly large). For most, this feels like a chore. That’s where I see the breakdown.
As black folk, we are too often complacent with watching dumbed-down comedy/reality shows instead of supporting more complex storylines; the cancellation of “The Game” is a recent example.
Posted 29 May 2009 at 5:23 pm ¶
Miles Ellison wrote:
Suppose these films with diverse stories and portrayals get made. Is the black audience going to support these films? Does most of the black audience even want to see anything besides the crap they’ve been given? Or will they ignore them in favor Tyler Perry’s latest blackface opus? Will films by other persons of color even get into theaters if they don’t conform to stereotypical code?
Posted 31 May 2009 at 2:09 am ¶
BSK wrote:
@6 – Miles Ellison
Doesn’t that somewhat assume that characters of color and their stories are only intended for audience members of color? Obviously, seeing one’s self and one’s group accurately represented in the media is HUGELY important, but isn’t there also value in members of other groups being exposed to these stories? I think, regardless, your point is salient, in that stories of any type that break the mold for one reason or another are likely to be rejected by broad audiences for a variety of reason. But we should not limit ourselves to thinking that dearth of movies with characters of color is only harmful to people of color. We all suffer when this unfortunate reality continues.
Posted 31 May 2009 at 9:52 pm ¶
Miles Ellison wrote:
@BSK
There is certainly value in other groups being exposed to these stories. My question is whether or not other groups, or the broad audience in general, are capable of responding to anything other than clichéd stereotypes. As far as black people are concerned, if they aren’t supporting accurate representations, it’s a stretch to think that enough of any other group will support that enough to justify putting the films/TV shows out there. The fact is, House of Payne and Meet the Browns are still on the air, while Everybody Hates Chris, The Game, Girlfriends, and other shows that are at the other end of the portrayal perspective are off the air. Most films that aren’t creations of Tyler Perry or some worn stereotypical variant aren’t at the multiplex. It is harmful that there is a dearth of movies with characters, and it’s wonderful that people want to change that. I just wonder where the audience for that is.
Posted 01 Jun 2009 at 8:13 am ¶