A response to Sun. NYT's "Black directors look beyond their niche"

The Sunday New York Times ran a story which updated readers about the world of or progress of films made by people of African descent.

This story basically recycled the facts of how we have the same old story of snail-paced progress, which accomplishes too little and not nearly soon enough; it's like our artistic communities are jogging in place. It also begs the routine questions of when people of color are going to have enough clout and cash to consider white money as an after thought!

I don't understand why The New York Times ran the story; there is no information or news that advances this story which runs at an every-so-often frequency. The chronic questions about access and clout, about the politics of boldness or aggression vs patience, and about compelling talent pools remain.

The institutional Hollywood mentality and attitude.

Why must niche be interpreted in an ignorant and discriminating narrow way? I think this issue rests chiefly in which assumption the Hollywood's power people make about what their mainstream viewers want and will accept.

The filmmakers in the Times' article said that they have to hustle as much as their predecessors, but they hustle toward those doors that those predecessors knocked or charmed open. There's a tiny bit more access.

Where is the mass artistic and financial force that can propel bolder stories for and from communities of color? The ill economy only worsens the situation.

In pioneer African-American filmmaker Oscar Micheaux's era, the 1910's through 1940's, his conniving competitor's swindled enough money from the African-American community to trigger their suspicion and tight grips on money. That is probably the original the biggest obstacle. Even though more of our stories are being made, few of them are the kind that force viewers to think or to shift in their seats from uncomfortable thoughts.

Our media artists still fear the politio-economic consequences of making the stories and taking the stands that venture outside of easily assimilable ideas and portrayals. Those for which both Sidney Poitier and Will Smith are famous and often revered.


Where our power rests, but our aggressiveness and militancy is restless:

Will Smith, who has produced some delightful, highly-intelligent stories is simply one brother. He is also akin to the next generation of the Sidney Poitier type: neither he nor his best-loved characters make anglos shift in their seats. That's wonderful...sometimes.

When will we viewers be treated to someone whose vision, artistry, mission and style are as boldly, militant and aggressive as Spike Lee was when he came on the scene 23 years-ago? Other than Spike's 1992 "Malcolm X," Ken Burns' 2004 "Unforgiveable Blackness" provided the most high-profile presentation of a deviant and militant image of an African-American in recent memory.