Here's a little blast from the past. An lost and now found article I had on black independent filmmakers.
Exploitation by the Exploited: Black
Independent Cinema vs. Oscar Micheaux and Melvin van Peebles
By Carmichael Reid
It is interesting how my own philosophy is now... from when I was 21. What a difference two years can be. I will respond to my own essay, in the later days. But this is a start, hit the jump for more!
What
are the goals of African-American cinema? Why do most African-Americans avoid
mainstream Hollywood? Independent white film and mainstream Hollywood do not
fairly represent the overall concerns and image of the African-American
community. The goal of African-American cinema is to authentically and artfully
portray their community and their overall concerns. Therefore black independent
filmmakers avoid mainstream or white oriented film conventions.
It
is a matter of pride or glory in black independent filmmaking. It is a fact
that there is no true African-American independent filmmaker that can sell
commercially. African-Americans are a minority, their living conditions are not
something mass audiences want to see. Directors like Steven Soderbergh or
Darren Aronofsky can remain independent, and sell commercially. Because they
are free to project whatever message they want. Black filmmakers do not have
this luxury. They are obligated to present their background and culture’s
ideals. But there is a correct way and an incorrect way. Oscar Micheaux and
Melvin van Peebles exploited their culture to make a large profit.
Black
independent cinema originated in 1910, with the short lived Bill Fosters
Photoplay Company. The company was strictly dedicated to representing the
overall concerns of the black community. They employed only blacks to work as
performers and crew members. The sister company, Lincoln Motion Picture
Company, started by a group of black L.A. filmmakers, Noble Johnson and
Clarence Brooks. The two companies shared that “blacks should make movies with
black performers for black audiences... that there was a market waiting for
such films and that the black entrepreneur would profit financially.” (Reid 9)
The
two companies had one main goal, but different ways of achieving it. Foster’s
films were comedies about African-American city life. The two feature-length
films were The Railroad Porter and The Fall Guy (1913). The New York Age described Foster’s films
as” comedy films representing Negro life without putting the race in a
ridiculous light.” (Reid 5)
Lincoln’s
films provided black communities with the scenario of family life and their
struggles. The Realization of a Negro’s
Ambition (1916) whose protagonist represented the middle-class hero that
overcame struggles by a strong work ethic. Over the period of 1913-1916, the
two film groups had a low budget, and produced 4 feature films and many short
films. The group had a dedicated audience and was critically acclaimed for
displaying pure and authentic messages to and about the African-American
community.
The
emergence of D.W. Griffiths’ independently distributed feature length film, The Birth of a Nation (1915) broke
production records and commercial records in early cinema (Wexman 12). Lincoln
and Foster’s could not compete with the mainstream audience that Griffith’s
film attracted. They were not concerned with it. In contrast, general audiences
were attracted to the major feature length film, as it was advanced in its
narrative style and cinematic innovations. But this film gained more
controversy than attraction by the black community. More notably, entrepreneur/filmmaker
Oscar Micheaux.
Oscar Micheaux started as a book distributer in 1913. In 1919, he
started the Micheaux Book and Film company. It was not an accident that
Micheaux arrived in the film business four years after the financially
successful Griffith’s film. There is a business in racial wars. Learning from
the production shortcomings of Lincoln Company and Foster’s Photoplay, Micheaux
invested into better production equipment to compete directly with Griffith’s
film.
Micheaux was angered at the depiction
of African-Americans, so he began raise money for a film which turned out to be,
The Homesteader. It was financially
supported by white financiers. As Pearl Harbour describes, “by selling shares
in his Western Book and Supply Co. To the white farmers.... He raised $15,000
to produce The Homesteader, the first
major feature length [8 reels] independent black production” (Reid 12).It
should be understood that black independent film is a completely black funded
and distributed industry. In this case, the producer was black and the
financing was white.
In 1920, the release of The
Homesteader responded to Birth of a
Nation’s racial negative depictions of blacks. Especially to the scene
where a white woman is sexually assaulted by a white man dressed in blackface. In
response, Micheaux created a sexual relation between a black man and a white
woman. This did not represent the struggles of African-Americans or even relate
to the social status of the community. In the 1900s, white and black
communities were segregated. Micheaux made a loud statement, but a false
statement.
The shock value from The
Homesteader created an audience, which allowed him to produce 3 films after
the release. Consequently, the films
strayed further away from the black community and their living conditions. His
narratives focused on violence, low-life, interracial intimacy and steamy love
scenes. The Symbol of the Unconquered (1920)
was the last film Micheaux would produce as owner of Micheaux Book and Film
Company. The film was a dramatization of the over-aggressive and violent black
male triumphing over the KKK. Micheaux ignored the devastating tragedies of
discrimination and lynchings of African-Americans. And the impact it left on African-Americans.
He fantasized and exaggerated the black image. Additionally, he created a
protagonist that resembled the powerful and all dominating hero of the KKK, in
his character.
The pattern his films followed after The Homesteader showed that he was interested in commercial and
entrepreneurial success. Rather than social matters of his people. This is not the goal of black
independent filmmaker. Lincoln and
Foster focused on producing authentic black independent films.
The Great Depression caused black independent cinema to fold. The
Foster’s Photoplay and Lincoln Motion Picture company suffered the financial
trouble and disbanded in 1931. It forced black independent cinema’s industry to
collapse. Black independent cinema failed because of world economics. Black independent cinema was not in it for
the profit. It relied on the black community’s contributions. This is an essential distinction between black
independent film and black commercial film. Thomas Cripps writes, “blacks
raised capital from Schiffman of Harlem’s Apollo Theatre, Robert Levy of Reol,
and white Southern distributers like Ted Toddy and Alfred Sack. By the end of
the decade, the Goldberg brothers, Arthur Dreifuss, and Edgar G. Ulmer, all
white prevailed” (Reid 17). Micheaux’s work in “black independent cinema” was
misleading. Reid states “In fact, Micheaux’s post 1930 work more than likely
anticipated two decades of black directed, white-financed, low budget,
commercials films made outside of Hollywood” (Reid 17).
The financing in 1920 by the white farmers to make The Homesteader officially ended his
career as a black independent filmmaker. In fact, the black-directed,
white-financed commercial film was created in 1920. With the arrival of The Homesteader.
This served as inspiration to the filmmaker, Melvin van Peebles, who
later replicated the same financial and cinematic process to exploit the black
community. Oscar Micheaux’s idea was hypocritical. He is just as guilty as D.W.
Griffith is for exploiting a race for profit. He shared the same goals as
Griffith, but just happened to have black skin. Which proved as an advantage, his
followers to this day, still believe he was fighting the good fight. He was
playing both sides. It was only by the Great Depression, where he played the
race card to expose the white men behind the curtain.
Micheaux was a smart man. He
realized that many white businessmen were visibly appearing in the film
industry around the time of the Depression. He claimed bankruptcy, reformed his
company and left to Hollywood to produce the same style of movies. But without
title of a black independent filmmaker. He would go on to produce 48 films in
his career. None dealing with the authentic black struggle. Micheaux’s actions
not only destroyed an honest cinematic movement such as the black independent
film industry in the 1920s. Black audiences were no longer interested in rural
heroism. It would create the same ambiguity and corruption for the future of
black independent cinema.
History repeated itself in the years of The Civil Rights Movement. Racial
wars between blacks and whites were at an all time high. Hollywood and their
poor depictions of African-Americans were firmly established in mainstream film.
Notable black performers such as Mantan Moreland, Stepin Fetchit and Butterfly
McQueen were paid well by Hollywood. But to be portrayed in subordinate roles.
Such as maids, waiters, entertainers, etc. Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr.,
Jesse Jackson, Stokely Carmichael and other civil rights activists were
fighting for the acknowledgment of the African-American identity. Many
philosophies in achieving this goal differed. There was no one solution. This
led to Civil riots such as demonstrations and protests of many groups seeking
acknowledgment. This was a major issue in America. And a major issue in
African-American independent cinema.
1968 was a defining year for the activism in America. The Black
Muslims, Black Panther Party, and the newly reformed SNCC who recently abandoned
their non-violent philosophy for a more radical approach began due to the
frustration towards the white man`s system and the treatment of blacks. Resulting in riots, looting, arson and other
violence that broke out in several African-American communities around America.
The most prominent area where riots were occurring was in the
community of Watts, Los Angeles, California. The citizens of Watts were
restless, unemployed and impoverished. After the smoke had cleared, thirty-four
people were killed (32 of them black) and hundreds wounded. Martin Luther King
Jr. surveyed the destruction. Mark Hamilton Little author of America`s Uncivil Wars recalls King
Jr.`s experience. ``He was taken back when a band of young blacks announced
defiantly, `We won!`` ``How can you say we won,” King asked, “thirty-four Negroes are dead, your community is destroyed
and whites are using the riot as an excuse for inaction?” None of this mattered
to them: “We won because we made them pay attention to us.” (Lytle 189) What does this scenario to the emergence of
black independent film?
It describes the two philosophies of the distinction black
independent filmmaking. Melvin van
Peebles took the position of the young black kids and the black filmmakers of
UCLA believed in Martin Luther King Jr.’s philosophy. As previously mentioned, Melvin
van Peebles replicated the type of funding and distributing process of Oscar
Micheaux to make financial profit. To maximise profit, he used the successful
formula of Micheaux’s main protagonist from the 1920 film, Symbol of the Unconquered. Sweetback was loud and insensitive to
anyone who was not a black man. His masculinity served the purpose of
fantastical uprising against the social destruction caused by whites and the
system. For example, Sweet back beats up
two cops with their own hand cuffs. This was not a coincidence. As Van Peebles
could have been smarter than Micheaux. He was quick thinking enough to readapt
an already proven system. He reused it in a market that was even more confused
and racially restless. It was the core to Micheaux’s plan.
In April, 27th
1971, Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song
premiered in two small road show type theatres in Detroit and Atlanta. The film
was rated X for its sexual content. The tagline that was press released with
the premiere was “Rated X by an all-white jury.” (Home 2006). Many Black
Nationalists who worked in the grassroots to uplift the community publically criticised
the film for being a complete exploitation of the entire African-American race.
As the representative of Kuumba stated, “In terms of black aesthetic, Sweetback failed an essential
principle—the black art must be functional. Black art must do more than
stimulate.“ (Reid 1998)
The X rated film completely objectified women, more so, black women.
In the beginning of the film a woman is shown having sex with a 13 year old
Sweetback. Black Panther leader, Huey P. Newton maintained that this was a form
of nationhood and identity. “The music indicates that this is not a sexual
scene, this is a very sacred rite. For the boy was nourished to health... and
the act of love, the giving of manhood, is also bestowing upon the boy the
characteristics which will deliver him from the very difficult situations.”
(Reid 1998)
There are multiple sex scenes. Including interracial sex between
Sweetback and a white woman. Which was the convention used in Micheaux’s first
film The Homesteader to gain
attention. The gimmick worked for Sweetback.
The film sold a gross of $4,100,000 at the box-office (Leab 267).
$3,600,000 in profit for Van Peebles. After the success of the film. Hollywood
realised that there is an audience to this style of film.The mainstream public
who were white that the major labels market embraced it. Films like Shaft(1971)
produced and directed by Gordon Parks featured an African-American dressed like
a pimp and Superfly produced and
directed by Gordon Parks Jr. (1972) were Hollywood produced films that
replicate the ”black independent” filmmakers like Micheaux and Van
Peebles. This started the flood of
Hollywood produced films that depicted black protagonists as pimps, drug
dealers or militants. As Reid agrees in The
Black Action Film: The End of the Patiently Enduring Black Hero, “Having
established the fact that there was a young black audience receptive to
thoughts about violence, it should have been possible to create black action
films that appealed to this audience while satisfying a black aesthetic.
However, it never reached this ideal because there were not independent
productions or black independent producers relied on major distributors.”(Reid 1998)
The false representation of black independent filmmaking led to be
counterproductive. As a result, it becomes a misleading belief that black
independent cinema was killed by Hollywood.
Black independent cinema was misrepresented from the beginning. What
many think is that Van Peebles’ and Micheaux were black independent filmmakers.
They were not. They simply just dubbed themselves that for the credibility. If
there can be a distinction made between the Micheaux and Van Peebles aesthetic
to black filmmaking and the Hollywood mass production by African-American directors.
It can be concluded that there are more similarities than differences.
In contrast, there is a distinction between the black independent
filmmaker and the direction of Micheaux and Van Peebles. Martin Luther King Jr.
was worried about the underlying problems that directly affected the
African-American community. The black filmmakers of the UCLA film school
represented these ideals to its most authentic potential.
Mark Hamilton Lytle in Americas
Uncivil Wars recalls the rest of King Jr.’s experience in Watts, Los
Angeles. “King confronted the depth of alienation in black urban America. He
understood that the success of the civil rights movement did not address the
despair that defied the ghetto.” This is the feeling the black independent
filmmakers of the UCLA film school felt about the exploitation by Van Peebles,
Micheaux and Hollywood. Dubbed the “L.A Rebellion” by New York University
professor Clyde Taylor. Why the “L.A. Rebellion?” Didn’t devastating riots occur in L.A.? Why is
that a deserving nickname? The nickname is a correct one, because the UCLA
filmmakers were a rebelling against the false representations of the riots that
occurred in L.A. In other words, “L.A Rebellion” was a satirical nickname. They
were the real representatives of the rebellion of the popular mainstream and
commercial approach Melvin van Peebles’ was being criticized of.
The black filmmakers of the UCLA film school consisted of 8
independent filmmakers. Charles Burnett, Haile Gerima, John Reir, Pamela Jones,
Larry Clark, Ben Caldwell, Abdosh Abdulhafiz and Jama Famaka. The 1960s civil
unrest occurred worldwide. The group avoided mainstream and commercial route to
focus on issues relating to: the anti-war movement, civil war movement, women’s
movement and the awareness for national liberation in Africa movements. The
group related their films to depict what grassroots organisers, representatives
and workers have to go through. The turmoil and struggle of the
African-American community is shown without a screen or falsity. Their style is
reminiscent of the Italian neo-realist movement and the French new wave in the
1950s.
However the group did not start producing films until the 1970s. The
first being, Charles Burnett’s Killer of
Sheep (1977), which was re distributed by independent filmmaker Steven
Soderbergh in 2005. The synopsis is a portrait of slum living in Watts,
California. The lead character, Stan, works at a slaughterhouse. He cuts heads
off of sheep all day. He is completely numbed by this. When he goes home, his
disconnection from his wife and daughter is evident. This is a film that shows
what it like just to make the mortgage payment.
Their detachment from Hollywood conventions allowed them to uncover
the plight of the African-American community. Charles Burnett in an interview
with George Alexander in Why We Make
Movies answered the question about Hollywood and their approach to racism.
“Hollywood has serious problems when it comes to dealing with racism, some
serious problems. They don’t want to deal with it... I mean you say something [about
racism] and they get mad and call you difficult.” (Alexander 191)
With this said, the group has to compromise with financial and
commercial success. Major distribution firms stay away from black independent
cinema, as there is no guaranteed profit. Burnett says, “They [MGM-Goldwyn]
simply don’t give it a chance. They put it up for two nights and then take it
down, then blame the black audience for not showing up. The film needs time to
grow.” This is a reason why major distribution firms are avoided in black
independent film. The attention to marketing is more successful if it is
distributed by independent distributors such as Gerima and Burnett. Because
there is more time spent in marketing the film in the communities it is going
to be shown in. As well it keeps the filmmakers in touch with the community on
an individual level. This differs from the marketing style of Micheaux and Van
Peebles who were too focused on raising money. They ignored the human aspects
of the film, in Van Peebles case, to the point of neglecting his son.
The group has produced and distributed man films. Many of them are
critically acclaimed and often win awards. Such as, Gerima’s 1979 film, Bush Mama. Which focused on the troubled
times of an Ethiopian mother in the Ethiopian civil war in the 1900s. Together
the group has independently funded and produced their films. More than 30 are
in circulation.
In 1982, the UCLA group went their separate ways. But still remain in touch and continue to
make films that educate and inspire African-American communities. With the rise
of the internet, the black independent industry has maintained stability. Haile
Germia’s new film Teza premiered
internationally in 2008.
In conclusion, black independent film is not dead. Nor is it
struggling. It just seems to be as Hollywood and black filmmakers misrepresent
it. The confusion is in what type of success black independent cinema is after.
If commercial, it is not considered independent and there are
misrepresentations which do more harm than good in the black community. Or there are the social successes of Lincoln
Motion Picture Company, Foster’s Photoplay and the UCLA film group. They
compromised fame and popularity. For
pride and honesty, not the other way around.
Work Cited
Alexander,
George. Why We Make Movies: Black
Filmmakers Talk About the magic of Cinema
Broadway Books: New York 2003.
Bush Mama. Director. Haile Gerima. Sankofa Films. 1979
Diarawara,
Manthia, Black American Cinema. Routledge
Publishing. 1993.
Killer of Sheep. Director. Charles
Burnett. Milestone Films. 1977
Leab, Daniel. J. From Sambo to Superspade: The Black
Experience in Motion Pictures. Houghton Mifflin
Company: Boston 1975.
Company: Boston 1975.
Lytle,
Mark Hamilton. America’s Uncivil Wars:
The Sixties Era from Elvis to the Fall of
Richard Nixon.
Oxford
University Press 2006.
Symbol of the Unconquered. Director.
Oscar Micheaux. Micheaux Book and Film Company1930.
Reid, Mark. A. Black Action Film: The End of the Patiently
Enduring Action Hero.
Indiana
University Press, 1998.
Reid, Mark. A. Redefining Black Film. University of
California 1993.
Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song.
Director. Melvin van Peebles. Cinemation Pictures 1971.
Wexman, Virginia
Wright. A History of Film, 6th
Edition.
University of Illinois at Chicago
2006
No comments:
Post a Comment