Demonstrating once again (as if any demonstration were necessary) that “civil rights” has come to mean an entitlement to inclusion (as opposed to a bar on discriminatory exclusion), movie maker Spike Lee “has attacked the Hollywood studios for not including African-Americans as executives.” (HatTip to Drudge)
He tells US style magazine Complex, “You go to any studio, the (only) black guy you are going to see is the guy at the gate. In Hollywood, there is not one African-American who is an executive that has gatekeeper position that could greenlight a picture.
“They’ll make a movie with Denzel (Washington) and Jamie (Foxx) and Eddie (Murphy), but only because they can make money off them.
Insofar as there is any resistance to hiring black executives, I wonder if it might be based on a fear that they would do what Lee seems to want and “greenlight” movies by or with blacks even if they could not make money with them.
So what, Spike? Jews are dramatically overrepresented–I believe Ben Stein quoted a figure that 60% of the power-types in Hollywood are Jews–but they shouldn’t have their numbers reduced (despite what some on the far-right and far-left might say).
White gentiles and under-represented too.
“They’ll make a movie with Denzel (Washington) and Jamie (Foxx) and Eddie (Murphy), but only because they can make money off them.”
As compared to the motivation behind executives making movies with stars like Tom Cruise. NEWSFLASH: executives motivated by money.
Do people like Lee really believe their schtick? Or are they just using an available weapon to advance themselves and keep themselves relevant? It’s easy to blame anything on race, especially when you’re black. But just because someone claims or even believes discrimination ocurred doesn’t mean we should accept it. Such claims undermine individual effort and misplace anti-discrimination efforts.
Complaining that you face the same challenges as everyone else doesn’t merit sympathy, much less anything more powerful.
Clearly there is a market failure of which Lee could/should take advantage. Given his success, wealth, talent and connections I do not see why he hasn’t created his own studio and placed African-Americans into a position to “green light” projects.
MJ writes:
>>>”As compared to the motivation behind executives making movies with stars like Tom Cruise. NEWSFLASH: executives motivated by money.”
True to some extent. Tom Cruise movies do get made, usually for huge budgets, especially with Cruise commanding $20-25 million per picture. But not EVERY movie is designed to be a box office bonaza with hundred million dollar budgets. Look at the list of films nominated for an Oscar this past year:
“Munich”, “Good Night and Good Luck”, “Capote”, “Crash” and the ubiquitous “Brokeback Mountain.”
Munich, had a budget of $68 million, but wasn’t a box office barnburner. One good note is that a movie like “Crash”, which explores racial attitudes with an extremely diverse cast DID get made.
As with writers, illustrators, and singer/songwriters artists, technology has advanced to the level where now the independent artist, for not a terribly high cost, can produce and distribute his or her own work to the world, removing some of the leverage that moguls in Los Angelos and NYC may have had in the past.
–Cobra
>>>True to some extent. Tom Cruise movies do get made, usually for huge budgets, especially with Cruise commanding $20-25 million per picture. But not EVERY movie is designed to be a box office bonaza with hundred million dollar budgets.
Smaller budgeted movies can be (and frequently are) even more profit-motivated than their big budget brethren.
At any rate, pretty much any movie made in Hollywood is going for the green big time. It’s just a matter of which audience they’re getting it from.
Spike Lee’s movies suck. He’s just trying to keep himself in front of the camera, so someone will pay him to step behind one. Unfortunately for him, his last umpteen movies sucked and made almost nothing. Hollywood execs know what color Spike is when he walks in the door-red, as in lots of red ink! He thinks he can extort the greedy, amoral idiots in Hollyweird, as he loses money for them! Hahahahahahaha! What a clown!
Does anyone really care what someone who thinks that a TV network was named after him says?
DavidJ writes:
>>>”Smaller budgeted movies can be (and frequently are) even more profit-motivated than their big budget brethren.
At any rate, pretty much any movie made in Hollywood is going for the green big time. It’s just a matter of which audience they’re getting it from.”
Again, I agree with you to some extent. My response was geared to the Tom Cruise commentary.
I’m sure the director of “March of Penquins” didn’t expect the hoopla and popularity that the film produced, in retrospect.
–Cobra
“Munich”, “Good Night and Good Luck”, “Capote”, “Crash” and the ubiquitous “Brokeback Mountain.”
Yes, Hollywood isn’t just about making money. When awards time comes, it’s about which movie makes the most liberal statement.
I lived in Fort Greene Park while Spike Lee was filming “Do the Right Thing.”
The problem in Fort Greene Park was black gangsters hanging out on the corner and terrorizing everybody (blacks included) who walked by, open drug dealing in the parks, and public schools that could not isolate themselves from the thuggery.
Lee’s analysis of the problem: whites owned stores in the neighborhood. Lee’s solution: burn down the white businesses that would serve the neighborhood.
Lee is an overt, and knuckleheaded, racist.
why is it that the liberalism of hollywood does not extend as far as getting blacks behind the scenes.