Why are black films struggling this year?

Nothing controversial about that.

That GIF wasn't meant as some kind of smug proclamation. It was a dumb joke. As in
Q: Why are black films struggling this year?
A: Because people aren't seeing color.
See? Dumb and offensive.

Blitz would be the movie about the bi-racial kid that couldn't be evacuated during WWII. Haven't watched it yet and don't know how to quantify streaming only films.

Well I don't think a thread should be closed becaused it's caused an emotional reaction from you. However Adil and Belal filmmaker is someone's whose filmography you should familiar yourself with.



7/8fhs of the billed cast is black...and Mike Leigh also did Secret and Lies(1996), have you seen that film.

• Marianne Jean-Baptiste as Pansy Deacon
• Michele Austin as Chantelle
• David Webber as Curtley Deacon
• Tuwaine Barrett as Moses Deacon
• Ani Nelson as Kayla
• Sophia Brown as Aleisha
• Jonathan Livingstone as Virgil
• Samantha Spiro[8]

Actually I picked out the film because it made the AFI top ten list and it's getting promoted in Award contention. The film was also a massive bomb coming in at the highest point 14th in August.

https://www.the-numbers.com/box-offi...end/2024/08/09

Well you wrote quite a bit I just don't know if you've made any points. However the element of obtuseness demonstrates why this topic is important. We are dealing with macro and micro elements here, on a larger scale the films are not doing well commercially although many are doing well critically. Often times I wonder if the critical praise has lost it's credibility in this genre because reviewers are afraid/pressured or inclined to not be fair and honest with their reviews. Speaking of an over-arching element of societal norms.

On the flip side on a micro level this forum might feel like they don't want to speak on this genre of film, but it also seems like the films aren't being watched. Mufasa is a 200 million dollar movie that it doesn't seem like a single person went out and saw.

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/b...nd-1236257432/

This also happened last year when The Color Purple was the major Christmas release, won the Christmas day...came in second to Wonka and was out of the rankings by week 3.

No worries, my post isn't really targeted at you. And indeed, how could I be upset with a joke when my own entry into the thread is a joke premised in the same area? Pot calling Kettle.
You're good. We're good.

What I take issue with is a cultural contempt that we have collectively developed for the very idea of colorblindness. Patriots Head Coach Jerod Mayo, for example, said on January 17, 2024, “I do see color, because I believe if you don’t see color you can’t see racism.” This is an idea predicated on essential difference (splitting us up, never unifying) and grievance (where is the racism in this case?). Colorism demands that when we see another human being we see them as a segregated human, a hyphenated human, a member of the oppressor class or the oppressed.

When I was a kid I had two close friends with the same name. One was white. One was black. Thus, people around me took to marking them by color. For a brief time, I saw them as the black one and the white one. Over time, I lost contact with one of them. The other one became a sort of partner in crime, a confidante, a close friend, my best friend, the best man at my wedding. At some point we became brothers. We have talked about race issues over the years and we've had arguments (as you might guess, anyone I am friends with loves to argue) and I have been challenged by his input. But when he challenges me, I only hear a brother talking to me, and that's part of the reason that I listen. That unity. That's the goal. That's the dream.

Thus, if a person says, "I don't see color" as a matter of policy (i.e., I do my best to attempt to see the person), I respect this statement. If a person says "I don't see color" as a brag or a boast, then they almost certainly need a perception-check, but we need to leave space open for the normative ideal, because colorism is looking backwards.

I regret to inform you that U.S. Today has declared, And, as Far Out Magazine UK asks, I'm not.

Probably the same as "black metal."

Tungsten?

__________________
I destroyed the dastardly dairy dame! I made mad milk maid mulch!

I hate insomnia. Oh yeah. Last year I had four cases of it, and each time it lasted three months.

I don't The Fall Guy was a bomb as much as it failed to be a hit. It had a theatrical run that extended into July.

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Fa...tab=box-office

Both The Fall Guy and Furiosa also came out in May along with IF, Garfield, and Planet of the Apes. Those films may have struggled due to competition. Furiosa on the other hand might have flopped because Memorial Day is a bad time of the year to release female led films.

2024 - Furiosa
2023 - The Little Mermaid
2022 - Top Gun Maverick
2021 - Cruella
2019 - Aladdin
2018 - Solo
2017 - POTC
2016 - X-Men Apocalypse
2015 - San Andreas
2014 - Maleficent

In the 10 seasons (not years because of Covid) what was a weekend that was basically critic proof at the start became a coin flip when Solo came out. Only Top Gun Maverick became a real blockbuster.

As for Mufasa being a black film or not being a black film. Their is room for debate and discussion with cast led by Barry Jenkins who has solely worked with Black film at this point in his career. The original Lion King had diverse casting James Earl Jones, Whoopi Golberg, Robert Guillaume and Madge Sinclair. Were joined by Matthew Broderick, Jonathan Taylor Thomas, Rowen Atticksen, Nathan Lane, Moira Kelly.

The CGI Lion King on the other hand all the black characters from the original remained cast by black actors and then other roles were expanded where Simba became Donald Glover, Nala became Beyonce, Scar became Chiwetel Ejiofor. Moving onto this Mufasa film which features 25 black actors with all the adult/children versions played by characters of the same race. It seems strange to just ignore the pattern and to try and dissociate the film as a black film. If the film were a huge hit I don't think the energy or inclination would be there to say this isn't a black film.

What we do know through history is genres do get marginalized when they fail to become profitable. 20 years ago comedies used to come out every week now pure comedies that don't operate under some other genre feels incredibly rare.

Nickel Boys (2024)

Nickel Boys is one of those films that for a number of people will be their favorite film of the year. It's a docudrama that covers the Dozier School in Florida. Being a true crime buff I had already known the backstory and that tainted my experience with the film. The filmmaker made a number of stylistic choices that created a very memorable and somewhat dishonest film. So for me I'm dealing with a personal conflict because on a technical level it's brilliant.

So the plot of the film is a boy gets in a bit of trouble in Jim Crow South in the 1960's. He doesn't do anything really wrong he's just wrong place wrong time wrong person. He gets sent to what appears to be a reformatory campus. Now the campus is segregated between the black and white students (this is true) and the film then covers the horific abuses the boy goes through. The story also jumps in time and inserts another boy who is more of a tramp type figure.We get the friendship from the boys as they go deeper and deeper into the Dozier School and it's politics and history.

It's shot like a Mallick film and it's told like Shawshank Redemption. Now my only problem with the film was they treated the campus like it was an apartheid where the white kids led a significantly better life. In reality all the kids were being abused amd even more stuff was going on that the filmmaker chose not to go there.

I would recomend people watch this one because it is so well done antisocially, and it's a good quiet theater experience if you get the chance to see it that way.

Hard Truths (2024)

A lot of black movies tell the same stories and give you the same characters. This is one of the main reasons I find the genre dull. But every once and a while, typically one time a year you across a true gem of a film. Hard Truths is one of Mike Leigh's best films taking on the topic of mental health issues and generational trauma Hard Truths is the story of Patsy a miserable woman suffering from severe mental illness and lashing out at everyone around her.

Leigh weaves the family in through a series of compelling short scenes to contextualize everyone around Patsy. Capturing this middle class family and the struggles that one person can provide everyone around her. But Baptiste gives a tour-de-force performance just unloading these monologues in scene after scene. You hate her at times but you also laugh with her at other moments and that during other moments your heart just breaks with how some of these people live their lives.

The lesson in this film is you can make a very small movie that leaves a huge impact with the viewer. I will likely revisit this one, it makes my top ten of the year.

Sing Sing (2023)

I don't know is anyone just not a fan of Colman Domingo, I just always feel aware of Domingo and his over acting. This is one of those movies that got rave reviews but I just found it to be a pretentious bore. The film centers around a group of actors/convicts in Sing Sing prison. Domingo plays the director/writer/leader of the group that attempts to bring in a more difficult prison named Divine Eye. Compared to the lead of the film whose character name is divine G.

Yeah everyone in this film has weird nicknames. The play G is setting up is this strange hodge podge of different characters/tones/genres/ideas and I suppose some might find it profound I just found it silly and over the top. What this film is really about is prison life and the attempts at saying profound things but for me it never felt authentic. A third act reveal from the main character just had me rolling my eyes because of course Domingo's character had to be that(it's spoiled in the Wikipedia page).

A number of actors in this film, play themselves as they've been released from Prison. Which is an admirable gimmick but it always feels to me like a gimmick. I'm not going to give it a terrible rating but this is a black pain movie that I'm happy to never have to think about again.



I wish I was able to post these reviews when the films were actually out but the site has been down for the last ten days. So I haven't been able to post many of my reviews.

I finally saw Sing Sing yesterday and enjoyed it. Part of the reason many of these films are struggling is because they don't get wide release. Hard Truths, Nickle Boys and Sing Sing never played at any theatre near me. Sing Sing was not available on demand until yesterday. Hard Truths and Nickel Boys are not available on demand or streaming. People can't watch these films if they are not available to watch.

If a film has a narrow appeal, if it is a FUBU (For Us, By Us), if it is "A Black thing, you wouldn't understand," then it is a film directed at only 13% of American viewers. It would not be promising to release such a film widely in brick and mortal theaters, but rather strategically to serve the target audience and maximize profit. If a film, on the other hand, has a wide appeal (made for everyone), then the authenticity of the film comes into question. Is it a black movie for white people? Is it gentrification? I think that there are reasons to make both kinds of movie, but the former (which is to say "blacker"?) movie is not well-engineered for wide-release.

I don't think the films mentioned, Sing Sing, Hard Truths, or Nickle Boys, have narrow apparel or made only for black people. They should have been released to a wider audience and a diverse group of people might have gone to see them. I don't think any film needs to be made for any specific audience. Make the film and don't worry about if it is for black audiences or for everyone. Just release it wide and let people decide if they want to see it. These films had potential to do well at the box office with diverse audiences. I'm a white Canadian and I wanted to see those films and would have very happily paid money to see them at the theatre. "Black films" should have wide releases.

I don't know. But the question of appeal is "ticklish." For whom is a "black film" made?
Why should they have been released to a wider audience? What is the nature of this "should"?
Perhaps not any film, in particular, needs to be made for a wide audience, either? There are demographically intentioned works of art. Happens all the time. Indeed, this is what it means to have a "target audience."
That might betray the artistic intention of the artwork and/or its makers. This might betray the financial interests of distributors who are in business to make money by giving audiences what they want. Thus, this might be a principled and prudential betrayal. If the film itself is concerned with blackness, why should film distributors be unconcerned with demographics?
I guarantee you that if there were a strong Canadian demand for narrative about the Black American experience, Canadian theaters (live and projected) would feature this art, as it would be profitable. You, as a Canadian, however, are an anecdote. Moreover, I am not sure that films that are not made for us should have to serve us in terms of content, style, production, or even distribution. Guests need an invitation. Not every artwork issues such an invitation. I am happy to consume subversively (I really have no choice in an artistic world that increasingly sees my demographic as the "problem" if not the "enemy"), but I would not condescend to demand that an artwork which isn't made for me must be delivered to my local theater, especially if it is not likely to turn a profit.

I think one or both of you may be conflating two distinct questions:

1) Is there such a thing as a "black film" (and if so, what is it?)?

2) If there is, are those three titles examples of it?

Allaby seems to be saying "no" to the second, but only sorta-kinda interrogating the first.

And for the record, my answer to #1 is "yes," but I'm thinking of things like Barber Shop or Soul Plane or whatever, and not things like Nickel Boys. There's an obvious distinction between a film made by and for a minority group, and one made by and about a minority group, but in a way meant for everyone. That distinction maybe gets a little blurrier when considering films specifically made to show people outside of a group what it's kind of like to be inside it, too.

Perhaps instead of asking for whom is a black film made, we need to establish what a black film is, and if there even is such a thing as a black film.

Films should be released wide, so people have the opportunity to see them.

Film distributors should release the film as wide as possible, in as many places as possible so people can see. Just because a film is about being black doesn't mean only black people will want to see it.

My argument is that films that are not made with me in mind should still be released wide so that I and others have the chance to decide if we wish to see it. It is quite possible that a film that some might label as a "black film" could make a profit. People who aren't black may go and see it, if given the opportunity.

My answers would be:

1) I don't believe there is personally, however I recognize others label certain films as black films. I don't find it helpful to label films based on the people in them or who the intended audience is. Labelling films as black films (or gay films or Christian films or whatever) could alienate potential audiences. A straight person can enjoy a film about a gay couple. An atheist can enjoy a film about Christian characters. A white person can enjoy films about black people.

2) I think we should resist labelling these films or any films as black, just like we should also not label films as gay or Christian or straight or atheist or white. I think the label of black films is inherently not helpful or productive. They are good or bad films (or somewhere in between). Watch them and evaluate them based on merits and release them with the intent of people of any type watching them. Distributors or marketing or whoever shouldn't tell people certain films are not for them.

Another ticklish question.
Well, no. A public library, for example, has limited shelf space and limited funds. We cannot even entertain the question of whether a particular library should shelve every book until we have established that it has unlimited shelf space and unlimited funds. Distributors, like libraries, have to make decisions which might seem prejudicial or censorious, but which are fundamentally practical. How do we serve our public? Not every film can have a wide release in a brick and mortar theater. Streaming services, print-on-demand vendors, and other internet age innovations have radically democratized our access to a diverse array of products, but a film in a theater (when I was a kid working in a theater, we were always reminded that it cost a hundred dollars to strike the bulb to show a film, even if there was only one person who bought a ticket) only has so many screens and must turn make money to stay afloat. And it is increasingly difficult to do this, because they are competing with these many new internet-age innovations.
They should distribute a film as widely as profitable, at least this is the case if they want to continue in the business of distributing films.

If you see a moral obligation, you might start a charity or call upon taxation of the public to help pay for such distribution, but then we would get into the heated question who would be given "diversity bucks" to help pay for promotion and distribution of art and we would be entering into the the realm of government propaganda as the state, through taxation, would be privileging the messages it wanted us to consume.

If anything, diversity narratives are overrepresented in modern art. A typical film or TV show will feature many more transgender, homosexual, and mixed race couples than we find in the actual population viewing these products. Our dream-weavers are already quite vigilant in regards to programming diversity. You couldn't make The Thing (1982) today, because of this general sensibility, which paradoxically deprives us of a diversity (i.e., that of exploring male homosociality). Frankly, I don't see a crisis of black films not being given a fair chance. There are plenty of products. They are widely available. No, your local theater should not put itself out of business to increase this representation just a bit more. That's bonkers.

I'm not suggesting the local theatre put itself out of business. I'm suggesting some films labelled as black films, such as ones mentioned in this thread would likely make a profit if they were released in more theatres. Films that are critically acclaimed and have award nominations could make a profit, if given the chance. Not every film labelled as a black film should automatically get a wide release, but films like Sing Sing and Nickel Boys, should get a wider release than what they got.