A Message from the CEO

Message and Fundraising Appeal

     Where have all the African American independents gone?  Remember back in the mid 1980’s to early 1990’s after Spike and Robert Townsend had both hit the scene in a big way with “She’s Gotta Have It” and “Hollywood Shuffle” respectively?  Matty Rich came “Straight Outta Brooklyn”, the Hudlin Brothers were having regular “House Parties” and their “Boomerang” was the highest budgeted African American film of its day.  Wasn’t it starting to look like a renaissance in African American Cinema?  We all just knew that this was the prelude to a flood of diverse films to be made by African Americans filmmakers.  Did you ever wonder what happened to that renaissance?  I know that we’re still making the films, but we’re not seeing them in the theaters.  Where do they go?  I will answer that later.

     Come to think of it, what about the previous renaissance in the late 60’s, early 70’s?  Within a two year period, Melvin Van Peebles gave us “Sweet Sweetback” and Gordon Parks gave us “The Learning Tree” and “Shaft”, (the real one with Richard Roundtree) which saved MGM Studio from financial ruin with its impressive box office performance and it looked as though there would always be a wide assortment of African American–themed films from which to choose.  Suddenly, that “renaissance” died. Why?

     As long as we’re asking, why not ask about what happened in the 1930’s.  For over twenty years prior, there had started a burgeoning movement by African American filmmakers such as Oscar Micheaux whose films, referred to as “Race” films (to “uplift the race”), were enjoying and enjoyed by large audiences in segregated African American-owned (and a few white-owned) venues around the country.  Oscar Micheaux and his  contemporaries/competitors, Spencer Williams and brothers Noble and George Johnson ‘s Lincoln Motion Picture Co., and others, in rebuttal to “Birth Of a Nation” in 1915, displayed African Americans on screen as noble, educated, and accomplished dignitaries. Production and performance techniques were crude, but the stories were inventive and reached audiences around the world.  Some films featured Paul Robeson, Louise Beavers, Robert Earl Jones (James’ father).  Prints of Micheaux’s films have been found in Europe.  Micheaux Film Company had, at one time, maintained offices in Chicago, New York and in Paris, and yet suddenly, by the 1930’s, the Race films disappeared.  Oscar Micheaux went broke.  All of his contemporaries went out of business, their films nowhere to be seen.  What happened?

     The death of the renaissances of the 1930’s, the 1970’s and the 1990’s resulted from our loss of control over our own images and stories due to, for the most part, our inability to compete financially with the studios because of the loss of our audience.  These are prime examples of the danger in allowing other cultures to describe your culture and to transmit their distorted perception of you to the world as the truth.

     In the 1930’s for example, when majority-culture studios decided that it would be profitable for them to try their hand at writing stories for African American audiences, they put their wealth behind these projects.  “So you’re willing to pay to see yourselves on film?  We’ll show you black faces in films with higher production value.  Come and pay to see them in our films and in our theaters.”

     The African American audience was lured away from the “Race” film industry.  The distribution and exhibition networks that had been forged over twenty years were dissolved.  There was probably no racist motivation.  It was profit motivation.  Connect with your competitor’s customers and lure them away.  It’s business Darwinism, i.e., survival of the fittest; nothing personal, just business.

     Unfortunately, the stories that were produced were from the majority culture’s perspective of what the “Colored” perspective was believed by them to be.  Believe it or not, there were even African Americans employed by the studios whose job it was to be their living case studies.  Their mannerisms, language and habits were studied by the studio’s writers, forming the foundation for the portrayal of all African American characters in their films.  They provided the studio writers with their only first hand glimpse into the African American experience.  The studios knew that their mainstream audiences would never accept the “Race” film portrayals of African American teachers, lawyers and dignitaries, so they had to give their audiences the stereotypical portrayals with which they were “comfortable”.  These increasingly insulting portrayals eventually drove African American audiences away.  Majority-culture audiences had never really warmed up to the dark faces on screen anyway, so profits waned.

     Naturally, once the studios realized that there was no longer a profit to be made in films with African American actors and they shifted their efforts to films of mass-appeal, i.e., with few dark faces.  As a result, from the 1930’s until Gordon Parks and Melvin Van Peebles in the late 1960’s, African Americans became practically non-existent in film.

     Imagine how “Race” films, their filmmakers and actors, their distribution and exhibition networks, might have progressed in the ensuing seventy years had African American audiences not been snatched away.  How many African-American-owned theaters would still exist today?  Do you think there would be at least one African American-run studio/distributor today?

     In the 1970’s, the strong African American audience response to The Learning Tree, Sweetback and Shaft prompted an avalanche of cartoonish studio “Blaxploitation” films that were, for the most part, written and produced by majority culture writers and producers whose perception of our culture was driven by television and film portrayals conceived by other non-African American writers and producers.  “So you’re willing to pay to see yourselves on film? We’ll show you black faces in films with only marginally higher production value.  Come and pay to see them in our films.”

     Once again, the resulting reversion to African American stereotype and just plain bad technical filmmaking drove African American audiences away in droves.  After all, we couldn’t take your children to see these movies. White audiences never really patronized the films in large numbers anyway, so the studios, as is their custom, followed the trend away from African Americans on screen to the next big successful “formula du jour”, whatever it was at the time.

     Where would we be now, thirty years later, had we been able to capitalize and to take control over our images and stories before they were “adapted” by majority culture entities?  Do you think there would be at least one African American-run studio/distributor in place today?

     In the 1990’s after that initial “explosion” of independently produced and studio-picked up films, the studios, once again, rediscovered African American audiences.  Once again, the box office numbers dictated which types of films would draw African Americans into theaters.  We were given a wide variety of “in the hood” films from which to choose until that well ran dry.  Studio film acquisition divisions soon discovered that European films were inexpensive to acquire, most having been subsidized by government programs.  Majority audiences preferred to see European faces over Black “Boyz” in their hoods.  Even the subtitles did not deter audiences and these lower budget art films “traveled” better to overseas audiences.  As an aside, I got that from my last trip to the Sundance Producers’ Conference last summer after I admonished a panel of producers and studio reps about the lost profit opportunities when they opt not to “greenlight” (fund) more African American subject matter films.  The company line is that African American-themed films without Eddie, Samuel, Wesley and Denzel don’t “travel” well in Europe and the Pacific Rim nations and that third world (African) distribution channels are unreliable.  Anyway, the  studio development and production “greenlight” guys also discovered that African American audiences would be willing to bring their money to whatever films they decided to release, whether they featured African Americans or not.  That being the case, they figured, why not concentrate on making films only for the mass audiences, the 18-30 White male demographic, and occasionally feature a crossover African American star?  So ended the second renaissance.

     It’s important to understand that the studios have always been run by businessmen who are astute in terms of recognizing and capitalizing on box office trends. These trends become formulas for determining which types of films are the most likely to succeed, i.e., gross a minimum of three times their negative and promotional costs. The studio “greenlight” guys in acquisitions and development divisions study the performances of films from every genre and extract from these films the elements that they feel are necessary for a film to draw the desired audience.

     Films are acquired and given their budget “green light” (approval) according to the past performances of similar films. That is why studios are loath to innovate.   For example, comedies are much easier to sell than dramas and love stories which usually require marquee stars to carry them.  African American dramas and love stories are almost non-existent because no African American straight dramas or love stories have drawn $100 million gross audiences.  Few majority genre dramas or love stories have done so either.  “Love Jones” ($12 million domestic gross from a $4 million budget), “Love and Basketball” ($27 million domestic gross from a $15 million budget) and “Brown Sugar” ($27 million domestic gross from an $8 million budget) have all performed admirably, but did anybody see “Eve’s Bayou”?  Can anybody find it at Blockbuster these days?  It grossed $14 million theatrical from a $5 million budget, so good luck with that.  It was expected that Samuel L. Jackson could draw a larger audience into the “Bayou”.  It’s not that it was not a quality film, because it was.  Hardly anybody saw it in theaters and the theatrical run dictates its home video shelf availability. How about the “Beloved” fiasco?  Oprah’s $53 million investment yielded only $23 million.  Not enough folks rushed out to see Danny Glover’s naked ass in the theaters, so you’ll need to be Sherlock Holmes to find it at your local video store.  I enjoyed John Singleton’s very well made “Rosewood”.  It cost $31 million and grossed $13 million.  I wonder whose head rolled at Warner Brothers over that one.  The subject matter, a true story, was too heavy for most.  I also enjoyed Kasi Lemmons’ “Caveman’s Valentine”, but it suffered from the same fate as the other two films that I mentioned, not even grossing $1 million.  Sam couldn’t save that film either and his interracial love scene probably didn’t help it.  African American women drive the box office in a big way.  Usually, you would need Denzel to get your drama financed and distributed and he’s very busy!  Besides, even Denzel could not bring a large audience to his directorial debut, Antwon Fisher, which was an exceptional film that should have grossed more than its still respectable $22 million from a $12 million budget.  This does not bode well for the African American drama/love story unless the massive African American audience begins to patronize them.

     On the other hand, any film by Will Smith, Ice Cube, Martin Lawrence, Chris Tucker or any rapper that you might care to name is available in abundant supply at your video store and in a theater near you.  Cube’s “Fridays” franchise, Friday, Next Friday, Friday After…, (over $130 million combined box office gross from combined $40 million budgets) and films like Lawrence’s “Big Momma’s House” (over $150 million worldwide gross), “Bad Boys” ($140 million worldwide gross- sequel is in theaters as of this writing), “Blue Streak” (over $70 million worldwide gross with “B.S.” II currently in production) and many other light comedies with rap soundtracks seem to dominate African American box office numbers and crossover to majority audiences as well.  Should we even discuss the Wayans Brothers’ “Scary Movie” ($200 million worldwide gross) and its two sequels, or Bring Down The House (domestic theatrical $120 million and counting)?

     Given the foregoing statistics, if you have the choice whether to finance and produce an African American comedy or and African American love story or drama with your own money, and you’d prefer to make a return on your investment, what would you do?  It’s nothing personal.  It’s strictly business.

     We cannot present any moral case that would be compelling enough to make the studio/distribution corporation make business decisions that may bankrupt them.  A corporation exists for profit and it answers only to its shareholders.  The “Hollywood suits” at the studios have learned from experience that in order to make profits, it is important to give audiences what they want.  Films are no different from any other product in that regard.  The continued employment of the “Hollywood suits” depends upon their ability to generate the profits that are the studios’ lifeblood keeping their shareholders happy and their entities afloat.

     The “Hollywood suits” generate these profits by offering their products to the widest possible demographic, i.e., middle American audiences who, for the sake of simplicity, we’ll refer to as “Wisconsin Dairy Farmers”, or WDF’s.  The “Hollywood suits” know that the WDF’s, especially those in the 18-30 male demographic, love light mindless comedies.  Other than what they see in the media, in general, WDF’s are not exposed to, nor do they comfortably understand any cultures other than their own.  It’s not their fault; it’s a function of geography!

     Consequently, WDF’s are no more interested in seeing Danny Glover’s naked ass or in seeing any known or relatively unknown African American actor playing the non-funny, well educated, non-dancing or non-swearing African American doctor/lawyer family men/women in love and/or solving their own problems, than African American audiences would be interested in seeing stories that make WDF’s comfortable!  WDF’s, in large enough numbers to matter, are “comfortable” with non-threatening African American men who make them laugh, who sing and rap, dance, disrespect their women, play sports and music while solving their White onscreen protagonists’ problems like a mystical genie, as in “The Green Mile” and “Bagger Vance”.  What the hell was Will Smith thinking, anyway?  WDF’s are more comfortable with loud, sassy overweight African American women shaking or selling ass.  So here’s the key distinction.  African American audiences could wait for stories that make them comfortable, but to avoid what would be long lapses between movie visits, African American audiences pay to see the occasional WDF-comfortable story since that is what is most often offered in local multiplexes.  Movies are still the most affordable form of entertainment available and African American audiences, as a rule, don’t swarm to see live theater.  WDF’s, however, can go to the local multiplex movies every week without ever having to be uncomfortable, seeing non-funny, well-educated, non-dancing or swearing African American doctor/lawyer family men/women in love and/or solving their own problems.  Judging by box office statistics, it’s becoming apparent for a small minority,  African American audiences, in large enough numbers to matter, may also be uncomfortable seeing non-funny, well educated, non-dancing or non-swearing African American doctor/lawyer family men/women in love and/or solving their own problems.

     We can be conditioned (read brainwashed) to believe anything presented on screen.  We’ll even believe that African American professionals do not really exist.  After all, much of the criticism of The Cosby Show came from African American viewers.  They believed that it was unrealistic for an African American family unit to consist of two African American professional parents in the home together.  Most of the criticism of Oscar Micheaux’s films came from African Americans.  They believed that it was unrealistic for African Americans to be portrayed as professionals and aristocrats.  The foregoing dynamic is the reason why film should never be relegated to mere entertainment without further societal ramifications.  Films and other visual media, viewed by millions around the globe, create the perceptions by which the entire worldwide population judges us.  There is no more effective means for quickly and widely disseminating or discrediting an image.  Sometimes we can be our own worst enemy.

     So what are the “Hollywood suits” to do?  Should they make films to appeal to the minority?  Would you?  Does this mean that there can never be diversity in the types of stories that are marketed to African American audiences?  Not if African Americans begin to go out of their way to patronize quality films that feature non-funny, well educated, non-dancing or non-swearing African American doctor/lawyer family men/women in love and/or solving their own problems.  It’s only logical business sense.  If the “Hollywood suits” discover that twenty million folks will run out and pay to see Eskimo crime dramas or an Aboriginal love stories, we’ll be deluged with Eskimo crime dramas and Aboriginal love stories until that is no longer the case.  “Hollywood suits” are content neutral and profit motivated.

     As African American filmmakers, the law of supply and demand will dictate that once we cultivate our mass audience and prove that our films are in strong demand; our films will get financed and distributed, either by “Hollywood” or by us.  Once we develop a loyal audience that we are able to service, preferably directly and independently through our own production, distribution and exhibition channels, the studio suits will woo us like the profit whores that they all are, so stop complaining about what “Hollywood” won’t do, especially now that the means of production, i.e., camera, lighting and sound and editing equipment, have been placed within our financial grasp.  There were at least a dozen films in theaters that were shot with cameras that cost less than $5,000.

     How do we cultivate a market for our stories?  We start by creating imaginative and innovative stories and scripts which are the foundation for imaginative and innovative films.  Read novels by some of the many African American novelists and option them to create screenplay adaptations.  Option and adapt stage plays from some of the many African American playwrights.  Create story-driven pieces that entertain, without preaching, while providing balanced portrayals of ourselves, reflecting our diversity as a culture, with all of our accomplishments, and even our drama and our faults. Not always “positive” films, necessarily, just balanced!  Present the good with the bad!  If we make films featuring stories that are borne out of our own honest experiences and perspective as only we are truly qualified to tell them, without bowing to the pressure to create from within the narrow range of stories that the “Hollywood suits” believe that they know how to market, our audiences will give you their money if they find out about your film and can get to where it is playing.

     A case in point is a movie entitled, “Trois”, by Rob Hardy and Rainforest Films in Atlanta.  It was, at one point, and may still be the highest grossing self-distributed independent film in history.  It grossed almost $2 million (domestic theatrical, pre-video/DVD sales) from a miniscule $200,000 production budget without any more than ingenious grass roots independent nationwide chain email campaign. “Trois” was a quality film that, like most of the independent films by African Americans, was only offered direct to “Blockbuster video” distribution. (Answering the earlier question about where the films are), I’ve seen plenty worse films in major distribution!  This film was a suspense drama that, believe it or not, featured non-funny, well-educated, non-dancing (for the most part)…well, you get my point.  Not settling for the usual “We don’t know how to market your film” distribution company line, Mr. Hardy and his partners opted for independent self-distribution.

     With its tiered nationwide release, potential audiences knew about “Trois” before it hit their cities.  People searched for it, they found it in their neighborhood independent theaters and they paid to see it.  It was an innovative story that wasn’t even a comedy!  Do you think Mr. Hardy’s investors got an acceptable return on their investment?  I would suspect that they did.

     I understand that most people like to laugh at the movies.  We all laughed at times while watching George Tillman’s “Soul Food”, (over $40 million domestic theatrical from a $7 million budget) but Soul Food was not primarily a comedy and we also cried at times.  We all laughed and cried during Antwone Fisher, but it was not a comedy.  Real life consists of comedy, drama, and sorrow in roughly equal portions.  I understand that we have enough real life drama and we don’t need to pay to see it, but why should any story in film be restricted to only one portion of life’s experiences?  Why not mix some drama, some moral lesson, and some positive image reinforcement into the teaspoon with some comedic sugar?

     One thing remains clear.  That African American audiences are starving for quality stories will always be the constant that will allow most African American films to earn profits.  With audience demand being as strong as it is, the market will dictate that enough of these films get distributed either by “Hollywood suits” or by us, to make the investment worthwhile for African American investors who share the vision of truly independent African American cinema.

     To that end, the Micheaux Foundation has initiated its fundraising campaign to finance its “Feature Film Initiative” The Feature Film Initiative consists of a total of six feature films to be financed, produced, and if necessary, distributed independently by The Micheaux Foundation.  Three of these projects are currently in development.  The remaining projects will be chosen after a worldwide search in a “round robin” competition similar to “Project Greenlight”, in which a nationwide search resulted in the $1.5 million- budgeted Miramax production of a script by the winning writer/director.  We’re resisting the impulse to call this “Project Blacklight”, but we would like for The Initiative to become an annual event, resulting in the production of the scripts that most effectively and commercially embody stories as told from the African American perspective; i.e. stories that will appeal to the widest cross section of multicultural audiences as possible without conveniently “selling out” to stereotypes.  These are lofty parameters, but George Tillman achieved it in “Soul Food”, as did Antwone Fisher and Denzel Washington.  We should not aspire to anything less.

     Remember that the only truly African American films are those financed, written, produced, distributed, and exhibited under African American control.  Without control over all of these elements of filmmaking there is no truly independent filmmaking and no position of power and that holds true for all film genres.

     As a non-profit 501(c) 3 organization, it is our goal to raise $18 million in tax deductible donations and corporate and foundation grants to finance this initiative, which will provide training and experience for hundreds of writers, producers, technical crew personnel, actors, and post production personnel over the next ten years. This funding will provide a budget of $3 million per film, which will incorporate a print and advertising budget for the independent distribution of each film, if necessary. Our ability to finance “The Initiative” without debt servicing will provide us with the freedom to produce stories without regard to what the mainstream distribution channels may choose to market while we cultivate new audiences for these independent films.

     I wonder if every African American who is interested in the development of Independent African American Cinema might contribute toward that end, an annual tax deductible donation equivalent to the cost of a movie ticket?

     Imagine the impact of our success in this venture, then imagine the impact as other organizations around the country duplicate what we do. The growth possibilities are limitless.

     The Micheaux Foundation will continue to train and support underrepresented filmmakers to provide them the true independence that will be necessary for them to tell our stories.

“Don’t Complain…Compete!”

-Cliff Pulliam, The Micheaux Foundation CEO