Comédie de l'innocence


With the eerie, unsettling Comédie de l'innocence, Chilean-born director Raoul Ruiz approaches a Hitchockian psychological thriller with his light surrealist touch, infusing a narrative mystery with additional, even more inscrutable layers of metaphysical mystery. It's typical of Ruiz's surrealism that it often doesn't seem surreal at all — his surfaces are placid, realist, even mundane, and yet his characters seem to be acting at right angles not only to one another, but to the fabric of reality itself. It's a skewed view on the world, one in which nobody is behaving normally even when they're pretending that everything is going as usual. It is a favorite Ruiz theme for a "normal" person to fall into an absurd situation and then simply, stoically accept it, and in many ways that's exactly what happens here.

Ariane (Isabelle Huppert) is an ordinary bourgeoisie wife, a theater designer, painter, and sculptor who pours herself into her art even as she raises her precocious nine year old son, Camille (Nils Hugon). But when Camille, on his ninth birthday, suddenly begins referring to her by her first name and demanding that she take him to see his "real" mom, Ariane reacts with only moderate concern, and decides to endulge the whim. Furthermore, when they arrive at a destination dictated by her curiously changed son, they eventually encounter a woman named Isabella (Jeanne Balibar), who calls the boy Paul and is vigorously embraced as "mommy" in return. Even then, Ariane does not react with fear or anger or even — as she doubtless would if this wasn't a surrealist film — by calling the police. Rather, she invites Isabella to stay in her home while the three of them figure out what's going on. This stoicism somewhat dulls the otherwise intense suspense of the film, since it's difficult for an audience to get too perturbed by Camille's strange behavior and the possibility of his disappearance when even his mother is oddly sedate about the whole thing. But Ruiz doesn't necessarily even want his audience to get caught up in the suspense. The film's weird, detached tone is a conscious choice, and the effect is to highlight the psychological dissonance thrown up around the ideas of family, motherhood, and childhood by the film's central triangle.

In one of the film's most telling scenes, Camille is confronted with questions by Ariane's psychologist brother, Serge (Charles Berling), and the boy reacts with fear and confusion. He's simultaneously hugged by both of his mother figures, who attach themselves to him from either side, forming a bizarre tableau of motherly smothering. And yet throughout the rest of the film, Camille's real problem is not too much mothering, but too little. The film is a broad and scathing critique of the bourgeoisie family structure and the child-rearing practices of the modern privileged classes. There is no sense of true family ties here. Not only is Camille's disciplinarian father (Denis Podalydès) all but absent throughout the narrative, away on unnamed business, but Ariane is utterly detached from her son's life. Even his birthday celebration is drained of fun or joy, and immediately after the cake she sends Camille off on a walk with the nanny, Hélène (Laure de Clermont-Tonnerre), promising to catch up soon, and only eventually arriving much later than she promised. Even Hélène, whose relationship to the family is ambiguous — it's hinted that she might be related to them, and yet she's also sleeping with Serge on the sly — sometimes passes off the task of watching Camille to an unnamed friend. Paternal responsibility has been almost completely abdicated, by the absent father (whose sole words of advice for his son are, "sometimes you have to do what you don't want to") and the inattentive, self-absorbed mother, and even by the nanny forced to stand in for these proper parental figures.

In this atmosphere of uncaring laissez-faire childcare, the other "mother," Isabella, becomes something of a balancing figure, lavishing Camille with motherly attention and forcing Ariane to compensate by at least attempting her own displays of affection and warmth. But the relationship between the real mother and her son is sometimes tainted by a hint of Oedipal feelings, as when Serge finds them cuddling on the staircase and says they look like a pair of "lovebirds." This isn't the only suggestion of incest in the film. Besides the ambiguous relationship between Serge and Hélène (are they related?), the family has an incestual relationship in its past, part of the historical lore passed down through the massive house that Ariane inherited from the generations before her. And this undercurrent finally surfaces in the deeply unsettling ending, in which, after everything has been restored to "normality" and Ariane learns that her husband is returning, she poses for her son's ubiquitous video camera, fluttering her hands seductively through her hair. She's vamping for the camera, and for her husband, and of course for her son as well, and this weird Hollywood starlet moment ends with Ariane staring directly, unnervingly, into the camera.

Ruiz delves into this kind of psychological complexity throughout the film, always leaving things just ambiguous enough to allow for multiple routes through the film's thematic maze. Huppert and Balibar are perfectly cast, the former radiating her usual cool, subdued intensity, and the latter communicating a faintly sinister, manipulative vibe through her all-to-sweet smiles and warm voice. It's a brilliant combination, and the sparks never fail to ignite whenever these two women are on-screen together, even if the overall tone always remains calm and contemplative. There are no fireworks, no histrionics, but the emotion comes across anyway. Their struggle is metaphorically realized within the film by the strategic placement of a drawing of the biblical story of Solomon's judgment, in which the ancient king had to decide which of two competing women was a contested child's true mother. Ruiz takes the time to study the picture, as he does with much of the art strewn throughout the family's mansion, cutting to each of its crucial elements in turn, emphasizing the way the picture echoes the situation within the house.

This drawing remains in the background, and even becomes the subject of a circumspect conversation, during a moody candlelit dinner scene at which Ariane, Isabella, Camille, and Serge form a strange, fractured pseudo-family. This point is underscored by the way Ruiz films the scene, starting at the base of the table with Ariane and Camille to the left and Isabella and Serge to the right, the camera sweeping back and forth so that it angles behind one pair and then the other. This motion calls to mind a scene from earlier in the film, the dinner for Camille's birthday, where Ruiz moved his camera around the dinner table in much the same way (and it's a motion he would repeat around a much more macabre dinner table in his recent masterpiece Ce jour-là). In contrast to the later scene, the birthday party takes place during the day, lit by sunlight rather than candles, and the family pictured is a more conventional one — father, mother, son, and late-arriving uncle — but not necessarily a happier one. The film is not making, as one would think it might be, the conservative argument that the family unit is broken and traditional families are preferable. It's more like Ruiz is saying that families are broken, period, traditional ones just as much as their more unconventional counterparts. The birthday party, when the family is together, is a miserable scene and not much of a model for a happy childhood. In contrast, the relationship between Isabella and Camille provides more of a model for what familial love might be, but even that turns out to be not quite what it seemed.

Such deceptive surfaces are the true core and nature of Comédie de l'innocence, so much so that Ruiz even explicitly makes the truthful/deceptive dialectical nature of filmic images themselves a subject of the film. Camille is constantly walking around with a video camera, using it to document everything he sees. His filming habit at times elicits very different reactions from his mother, who is in one scene driven to tears as he spirals impassively around her with the camera in hand, and in another scene flirts and primps for the camera's steady gaze. The cinema, for Ruiz, is an impassive filter for emotions, equally capable of delighting or upsetting, and often in his films doing both at once. Camille later edits the footage he captures into expressive montages which heavily filter, distort, and process the imagery into a near-abstract blur of sensations, colors, and fragmented images. But these abstract video works later prove to reveal some essential truths about Camille and Isabella. For Ruiz, film tells the essential truth even when it lies by distorting, warping, or exaggerating reality, a maxim that certainly applies to his own films.

Pierrot le fou


Jean-Luc Godard's Pierrot le fou is a road movie, but one in which the characters move, not through any physical geography, but across the well-traveled terrain of Godard's own cinematic corpus, revisiting key themes and familiar scenarios from the nine feature films that Godard made in the five years preceding Pierrot. The film's pivotal placement at a turning point in Godard's career — after his most successful Nouvelle Vague hits but still before his increasingly radical Maoist period — makes it particularly ripe for analysis in terms of Godard's filmography as a whole. It features two of Godard's finest actors and his most iconic figures, Jean-Paul Belmondo and Anna Karina, the latter appearing in her penultimate role in a Godard film, with their divorce still looming ahead. Godard is also revisiting one of his key concerns from his pre-Maoist period, namely the nature of romance and the adversarial relationships that society sets up between man and woman. Not least of the film's echoes of earlier Godard ventures is the way its plot and denouement mirror the feminine betrayal at the core of Godard's first feature Breathless, in which Belmondo was also led to his death by romance and female duplicity. What's different here, and what may help Godard avoid the charges of misogyny that (often justifiably) have been brought against his films, is the extent to which Pierrot interrogates and examines this archetypal relationship.

At the start of the film, Ferdinand (Belmondo) is a discontented bourgeoisie, married to an heiress and himself unemployed after an unsuccessful career in television. He goes to a party where, in a brilliant parody of both TV advertising and Godard's own earlier commercial work, all the characters speak in lingo apparently stolen from ads, extolling the virtues of cars, naked women, and deodorants with the same antiseptic language. Ferdinand wanders through the party, and as he moves from one room to the next Godard arbitrarily applies garish color filters to delineate one space and set of characters from the next. The arbitrariness of the color-switching underlines the extent to which these people are, despite superficial differences in favored topics, all the same; their language, the language of corporate culture, erases all distinctions. The filters also inevitably bring to mind Godard's one big-budget production, Contempt, in which the producers demanded more nude scenes for star Brigitte Bardot, and Godard famously obliged with a lengthy bedroom scene, during which color filters similarly rotated at random across Bardot's bare butt. The device's recurrence here is a subtle in-joke, a reminder that Godard too had sold out and spoken with the language of commerce — and also a reminder of how a device of commercial necessity had been transformed into art.

In any event, Ferdinand soon leaves the party and returns home, where he encounters the evening's babysitter, Marianne (Karina), who is by chance also his ex-lover. The duo set off on an absurdist road trip that seems ill-fated from the start, triggered as it is by Marianne's never-explained murder of a man in her apartment and their flight from a gang of gun-runners looking for the money and weapons she'd been stashing for them. This sequence plays out with Godard's typical wit and obscurity, the actual visuals reminiscent of a slapstick Keystone Kops routine, with the lovers dashing in circles, grabbing the blatantly fake prop guns, and running in and out of cars. Godard fragments the scene, repeating key moments again and again, destroying the moment-to-moment coherence in favor of a vague sensation of danger, hilarity, and action. The voiceover track, meanwhile, further exacerbates the confusion, as Belmondo and Karina take turns narrating the events, sometimes finishing each other's sentences in a contradictory manner and sometimes looping back to something already said. Repetition is a key component of Godard's aesthetic, and it comes into its own in this film, a central element in the film's deconstruction of the road movie's place-to-place narrative.

Indeed, this film doesn't follow a trajectory from place to place so much as from idea to idea. Places are mentioned, but only rarely as concrete markers of locations. More often places and their names are representative of abstract ideas: America, Vietnam, the Riviera (which, as Godard points out, contains the word vie for "life"), Las Vegas. Oftentimes, when Ferdinand and Marianne are traveling, they seem to be moving from one Godard film to the next. Pierrot is littered with remnants of earlier films, especially Le Petit Soldat (a bathroom torture sequence and constant references to the Algerian War), A Woman is a Woman (a few ragtag musical numbers with Karina at her most charming), and variations on Godard's oft-reused trope of enumerating a lover's body parts to declare one's love, first seen in the previously mentioned opening of Contempt. Pierrot also looks forward in interesting ways to the next half-decade of Godard's work, already containing hints of the apocalyptic road movie vibe of Week-end in the staged car crash where Marianne and Ferdinand fake their deaths. More broadly, the theatrical undercurrent of the film, its brilliant use of color and blatantly manufactured settings, is the first suggestion of the Brechtian agitprop theater that Godard would incorporate into his work more and more with films like Made In U.S.A. and La Chinoise. And if the landscape of Pierrot is a microcosm of Godard's films, it's also a pastiche of world literature and pop culture, as the characters themselves sometimes make explicit. When Marianne gets bored of staying in one place for too long, languishing in a seaside hideaway surrounded by friendly animals, she suggests that they ditch this Jules Verne scene and get back to the gangster novel they'd been living earlier.

It's typical of Godard's concern with language that he has taken the tenuous relationship between words and things to its extreme, ignoring the "thing" altogether in favor of the word and the meanings it has taken on. Marianne and Ferdinand both distrust language, but nevertheless acknowledge that it is the only way to communicate, even imperfectly, and so they continuously attempt to understand each other despite the seeming impossibility of it. In fact, for perhaps the first time in these earlier films, Godard seems to be actually interested in teasing out the why of male/female relationships, rather than simply presenting their tortured façades. He occasionally seems to be falling into typically sexist dichotomies — Marianne speaks in terms of feelings, Ferdinand of ideas and art — but here he does so primarily to disrupt and question such bipolar divisions. In one key exchange, Ferdinand and Marianne position themselves along the emotion/thinking divide as they discuss what they like in life, but the actual words they use to describe their supposedly different outlooks turn out to be quite similar. This seeming verbal agreement of course doesn't stop them from reiterating their incompatibility and lack of understanding, but the question has nevertheless been broached. Are male/female disjunctions primarily a result of social strictures that enforce such separateness? Does language help or hinder attempts to eradicate these divisions? Why don't Marianne and Ferdinand understand each other if they seem to be speaking similar words? As usual, Godard doesn't answer any of these questions, he simply leaves them hanging in the air as just one element in this sprawling film.

Ultimately, what all this adds up to is the same thing that nearly every other Godard film adds up to: a dense knot of questions, inquiries, and ideas, tied around a much looser core of plot points and character sketches. It's the perfect summation for his early 60s oeuvre, not only because it draws so many of those earlier films into its orbit, but because it is the epitome of his filmmaking at that time. It's clear, in the sure, sharp aesthetic of the film — its jaw-dropping widescreen vistas, its crisp primary colors — that Godard's filmmaking had reached a new pinnacle and a new stage. Here, he trades in the ragged and jumpy aesthetic of the earlier films, with their endearingly stitched-together quality, and on his first color feature since Contempt, proves himself a master not only of the use of color but of the widescreen frame. In one particularly brilliant shot, he maintains a long view of Ferdinand frantically running along a beach, quickly panning back to accentuate the urgency and then, as though to undermine this atmosphere, executes a leisurely pan to the left, meandering away in the opposite direction from Ferdinand's racing form. As the camera pans up and left across the fluffy clouds and pale blue sky, it eventually reveals Marianne standing on a balcony, held at gunpoint, thereby further accentuating the urgency of the shot and linking the lovers across the expanse of sky. The way in which Godard toys with emotions and meanings in this shot, simply through the movement of the camera, is carried out throughout the film. Despite his continuing (and sometimes overriding) interest in words and ideas, Godard is also among the most visual and sensual of filmmakers, and it is this dichotomy of ideas and sensations that exists at the core of Godard's filmmaking.

Charles Burnett's New Project...


Saw this on Tambay's blog--tho Sergio sent me an email about it too:



With his Namibia epic behind him - a film that still is without an American distributor, and which I've heard mixed reviews about - Killer of Sheep director, Charles Burnett, has signed on to direct a film for the Hallmark cable TV channel, titled Relative Stranger.

The film stars former ER star Eriq La Salle, the timeless Cicely Tyson, and the usually dependable, Michael Beach.

In the Hallmark Channel original movie, La Salle plays an angry man who abandoned his wife, children and extended family six years ago. When his father dies, he returns to get what his dad left to him and reunites with his family in the process.

Tyson plays La Salle's mom, and Beach plays his brother.

Charles Burnett is directing from a script by Eric Haywood. Principal photography began this week and is targeted to premiere around the Christmas holidays.


From IW: I love Charles Burnett, but I hope this plays less depressing than it sounds...

Terrence Watch! Number Sixteen

'Man, the more I hear myself talking, the more I think I might be certifiable.'

-Terrence Howard*


From IW: Ya think?


*thanks nic for the info; to read more from this "certified" interview, click HERE

Old School Music Friday...

Hey all...sorry to be late, but the Cali weather has a Negress twisted. Three days ago we had a record breaking heatwave, and yesterday there were tornadoes, mudslides, fires, and snow, hail and thunder storms all in the same day. I mean, what the eff?

But I seriously digress...this week's meme is Best Guitar/Bass Solos. To tell the truth, my favorite guitar solos are by Nirvana, but that would be another digression. This one is a bit cliche, but he is really one of the best guitarists that ever lived. Fans of his weren't surprised by all of the talent that came out in this film, but I believe it was singlehandedly responsible for making the great masses aware of him for the first time. Here he is performing the song that made him an international star at Coachella last month.

Update: Ok, Danielle let me know that the video has been taken down, as is almost anything that has to do with Prince, so here is Maroon 5 covering it (sorry) :-)



Old School Music Friday fam: Electronic Village Funky Finga Productions Mrs Grapevine Quick Cassandra Danielle Lisa C Chocl8t DP Kreative Talk MarvalusOne Regina LaShonda AJ Sharon Dee SJP sHaE-sHae songs in the key of life Hagar's Daughter There...Already Dallas South If I missed anybody, please let me know!

Random Movie News--Pimp Chronicles Edition

As I've stated before, I love movies about pimps. Yes, I may have a problem. There has been some random pimp related movie news that I've been meaning to post, but have been slacking. You may have read this stuff on other blogs, but that's what I get for procrastinating.


First up--Rihanna pimpin' or getting pimped? Sergio sent this over:

ICEBERG SLIM'S 'BLACK WIDOW' HEADED TO BIG SCREEN: Rihanna to make film debut opposite Mos Def, Macy Gray and Anthony Anderson.

"Mama Black Widow," the 1969 novel from "Iceberg Slim" writer Robert Beck, is being adapted into a movie with rapper Mos Def in the starring role and pop star Rihanna in her feature film debut.

With the backdrop of a black family's migration from Southern Mississippi to Chicago in the 1930s, the story follows Otis Tilson's struggle to keep his family together as they navigate through a world of alcoholism, pimping, homosexuality and racial degradation.

Other members of the cast include Brian J. White and Kerry Washington.

The movie is currently in pre-production under director Darren Grant for a 2009 release.

From IW: Mos Def can sometimes be very interesting as an actor. At the very least, he's watchable. I've enjoyed every Macy Gray in everything I've seen her in. It will be interesting to see Rihanna emote, as she is the only singer I've ever seen that performs with expression in her voice, but absolutely none on her face. Ever.

I just wonder how Kerry Washington fits into all this.



Speaking of Iceberg Slim, Ice-T announced that he is supposed to play the man himself in an upcoming biopic. I have a few problems with this. One, dude at 50 is way too old to be going there. Two, he is way too corny to be going there. And three, tho he has declared himself a pimp loudly to anyone who will listen, have we seen any evidence of said pimping except whatever airhead he is currently in a relationship with (I only know of two, and they were one at a time, including boobage challenged Coco).

Anyway, wasn't Ice Cube supposed to play Iceberg Slim in a film directed by Bill Duke? What happened to that? I guess the same thing that happened with Cube playing Mr. T in the A-Team big screen adaptation...he's going to be played by Tyrese (?!!)



Spotted this on Tambay's blog from the Cracked site; thank goodness this disaster was averted:


If you've seen the original Dolemite, then you know that it's a completely bug-fuck insane mix of classic blaxploitation, bad kung fu, pimping and some kind of bizarre poetry about monkeys, lions and the Titanic.

If you haven't seen the original Dolemite, feel free to go ahead and do that now. We'll wait.

What Went Wrong?
We could go on all day about the immense bitchslap involved in casting particularly-unlikable plank of wood LL Cool J as the Human Fucking Tornado, but that's not the worst that this project had going for it.

No, the worst was that some clever devil at Dimension Films (possibly screenwriter Buddy Johnson of Scary Movie and several episodes of the Wayans Brothers) decided that Dolemite would be a much better character if he wasn't a pimp, and if he was framed for a crime he didn't commit, and if he had three female sidekicks who most definitely were not hookers. Apparently if he really, really sucked.

What Went Right?
Delays. Fallout Entertainment has picked up the rights to Dolemite (though it seems no amount of money would be sufficient to buy them). LL Cool J is no longer attached to the project, and rumors have the infinitely more appropriate Snoop Dogg in the running for the lead.

What You Can Watch Instead:
The Dolemite Explosion.


And finally, for your daily dose of pimp juice, here is a video I found on youtube of a real-life pimp getting pimp-slapped by a civilian...enjoy!

Reader Comments....


There were some terrific responses to the post I wrote the other day regarding Wesley Morris opinion piece on the state of Black Hollywood called "A Black Hole". The comments were are relevant to many posts I have done on this blog, so I will put up a few of them in the upcoming week. Many were very thoughtful and well written. First up is Tambay Obenson's from The Obenson Report:

Your title to this entry says it all... "So what else is new?"

As I've probably mentioned before, I'm simultaneously attracted to and repelled by articles like this. On one hand, when I read Wesley Morris's piece (and the myriad of others like it), I'm encouraged that there are some of us who do demand and expect better; but then I'm also turned off by what feels like a rather "defeatist" attitude that's unfortunately prevalent amongst us.

I've grown weary of talking about what's wrong with black cinema. I feel like we've already granted it much lip service and should be past that, enough to see a shift towards some real action! So, I'm much more interested in hearing plausible solutions.

Maybe we should borrow from Malcolm X, and adopt a "by any means necessary" kind of stance, and build from there.

I think we all should be challenging ourselves here (myself included, of course)! Do we REALLY want change, and if so, what are we doing individually to see the change that we want? Or rather, what are we WILLING to do? Are we being passive, waiting for someone else to lead? Or should we be unwaveringly aggressive, and start blazing new trails?

Tyler Perry doesn't really give a shit about what we think, and frankly, I'm tired of talking about the man! He is what he is, and will continue down whatever path he chooses, regardless of what any of us says or does! As someone said above, he fills a niche, and that's fine. Just because we aren't members of his niche audience doesn't automatically disqualify what he's been able to accomplish! He's in a comfortable position, and I don't see him doing anything to ruin his treasures! The same goes for the rest of the black Hollywood elite - Will Smith, Denzel, Oprah et al! They each have their own personal agendas - agendas that don't necessarily include the rest of us. So, is there really any point in concerning ourselves with what we think they should or shouldn't be doing, since we have absolutely zero control over the choices they each make, and doing so only leads to further frustration? I say no!

As radical as it might sound, maybe what we should be talking about here is some kind of revolution from the ground up. Instead of waiting for them to foster change, those of us who are aware and "mad as hell" should lead the way... and the rest just might actually follow!I obviously don't have all the answers, and I don't expect any one person to generate the ultimate solution, but let's start hearing some real solutions to the problem, especially those that are within the power of the people, whether individually or collectively!

So What Else Is New?

Reader Janice posted a link in the comments to an article on a subject that many of us have lamented about repeatedly. It was written by Wesley Morris, a Black film critic at the Boston Globe. I have been Brother Morris' number one fan since his days at the San Francisco Chronicle, and a link to him has been on my blogroll since the first day I started my blog.

He is an insightful reviewer with excellent writing skills, and I always read and trust his film reviews before anyone else's; I rarely disagree with him. And I most certainly agree with him on this subject, without a doubt. Check it:

A few weeks ago I got to see Terrence Howard and Anika Noni Rose play Brick and Maggie "the Cat" in Debbie Allen's Broadway production of "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof." I went home depressed. Not because the show was bad, although, in its clanging way, it is. I was depressed because for all its shortcomings, the show was a big entertainment event that doesn't happen much in the movies: It had premium melodrama and black stars being starry. As a moviegoer, I hurt for that kind of glamour.

I felt the same hangover leaving an exhilarating concert by Erykah Badu and the Roots earlier this month, and watching both "The Wire," which just said goodbye to us and HBO, and the staggering acting in that production of "A Raisin in the Sun" ABC aired in February: Why isn't black life this interesting, vibrant, or complex at the movies? How is it that Terrence Howard can play a legendary character on the New York stage but is stuck as the sidekick who's jealous of Robert Downey Jr.'s hardware in "Iron Man"?

When it comes to black America, the movies are stagnating. Well, when it comes to any nonwhite male subject matter at the movies, the pickings are slim. But there's such a wealth of black stars, producers, and directors that the scarcity of movies - big-ticket or small, serious or light - focused on the lives of black people, is surreal. There's a gaping entertainment void. It's not just the lack of quantity. It's the lack of variety. Despite the usual death notices posted for hip-hop, black popular music is alive and well.

At the moment, black movies come in two flavors: uplift dramas and Tyler Perry. The first is represented by all those feel-good movies - "Akeelah and the Bee," "Stomp the Yard," "Pride," "The Great Debaters" - that, bless their hearts, wanted to empower us, but that nobody flocked to see. Message movies are a great notion but tricky as entertainment. The makers of these films have this noble but somewhat misguided idea that the average black moviegoer wants to feel like she's in school.

Perry's megaplex successes suggest that the average black moviegoer wants to feel like she's in church. His movies have sermons. His movies have soap opera. And, increasingly, his movies have stars. In the past, I've said only somewhat jestingly that a Tyler Perry movie is where black actors go to get back in touch with their roots. (The prim, post-Nipplegate Janet Jackson who showed up in "Why Did I Get Married?" wasn't just making a movie, she was asking for forgiveness.) But now a Tyler Perry movie is where a black actor goes to act. Angela Bassett is the star of "Meet the Browns." "Daddy's Little Girls" had Gabrielle Union and Idris Elba. And the movie that Perry, who essentially works without Hollywood's help, is currently filming has Alfre Woodard, Sanaa Lathan, and the loveable Taraji P. Henson, that pregnant, hook-belting hooker from "Hustle & Flow."

(to read the rest of the article, click HERE )

Weekend B.O.


WEEKEND BOX OFFICE (thanks Sergio!)
May 16–18, 2008 Studio Estimates

1) The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian BV $56,573,000

2) Iron Man Par. $31,200,000 Total: $222,485,000

3) What Happens in Vegas Fox $13,850,000 Total: $40,308,000

4) Speed Racer WB $7,645,000 Total: $24,367,000

5) Baby Mama Uni. $4,593,000 Total: $47,256,000

6) Made of Honor Sony $4,500,000 Total: $33,701,000

7) Forgetting Sarah Marshall Uni. $2,538,000 $55,065,000

8) Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay NL $1,800,000 Total: $33,901,000

9) The Forbidden Kingdom LGF $1,000,000 Total: $50,295,000

10) The Visitor Over. $687,000 Total: $3,403,000

11) Nim's Island Fox $580,000 Total: $45,248,000

12) Then She Found Me Think $528,000 Total: $1,578,000


IW: Sheesh. It is really a sad state of affairs when a hardcore movie lover like myself doesn't even pay attention to what came out this week...but I guess barely anything came out anyway.

"Ironman" is doing crazy business, so I guess I'll check it out this week. But seriously, does anyone really want to see "Made Of Honor"? I mean seriously. What the eff is "The Visitor"? "Speed Racer" is not looking good on it's returns; Sergio sent me an email saying that uber-producer Joel Silver might even lose his 20 year production deal over it. I saw a segment on "Then She Found Me" and it looked like a complete downer. Even more of a downer was Helen Hunt, who was never the attractive to me from the get, looks like 5 miles of bad road, as the saying goes. Bette Midler has completely handed herself over to the altar of the LA Plastic Surgery Gods.

Anyhoo, I went on one of my MMM's this weekend (mini movie marathons), but since only one would be considered Black Cinema (and unfortunately, it was the worst one) I won't go into detail. Let me just say "The Queen", "The Parralax View" with Warren Beatty (I adore 70's thrillers, and Warren was looking quite wonderful), and "3:10 To Yuma" (which I rewatched) are all very, very, worthy of first in line in your Netflix que. "Idlewild" (which I didn't pay close attention to the first time), not so much (sorry Andre 3000).

Ten Films You Should See If You Love Black People


FILM 9
from the
Ebony/Jet site by Jacquie Jones


Linda Goode Bryant and Laura Poitras

During the making of this film, the two directors – one black and one not – lived in a community in Columbus, Ohio as it underwent the radical transformation known as “gentrification,” and it shows. This is not a film of easy answers. Flag Wars instead forces us to consider what it means to really get a sweet real estate deal. Yet, as black homeowners fight to hold onto their homes as white gay “pioneers” circle around them, we also learn that no one is innocent here. If you are currently or have ever lived in a community that is in the path of gentrification, you need to see this film.

From IW: I hadn't heard of this film before, but having lived in the super-gentrification cities of Oakland, San Francisco, Brooklyn, and Philly, I can certainly relate. And tho I suspect it contains information we've wearily seen a thousand times before, it's always interesting to hear/see a different perspective.

Interesting....

Sergio sent this email to me today. I love to learn about new Black filmmakers and share them with you. This one seems to be making a bit of a splash, and he has one of the coolest names ever:

IW-

So have you heard that the big new film that's getting all the praise at this year's Cannes Film Festival is Hunger directed by black British filmmaker Steve McQueen? (Of course NOT to be confused with the famous actor with the same name) This McQueen is a highly praised modern visual artist in the U.K. and Europe and Hunger is his first film. (I've attached a photo of him below) I've sent you a link to Variety's review of his film and a comments from Variety's Anne Thompson from her blog about the movie.

The last African-American filmmaker I can think of who got praised at Cannes for his film was Spike Lee and that was some years ago. We being left in the dust.

Sergio

Variety review


Thompson On Hollywood:

"This is a talented new filmmaker, hugely gifted, visual and daring. The story of an IRA hunger strike in a Belfast prison is rough to sit through. McQueen throws everything in your face. But he does it with style. And Michael Fassbender--who appears to come close to really starving himself-- is a new star. He's going to play Heathcliff in a new version of Wuthering Heights. I doubt that anyone in the states will pick Hunger up. This is about discovering new talent. There was a rousing ovation from the press; Brit McQueen may be a strong candidate for the Camera d'Or, the prize for first-time filmmakers."

From IW: So if this film and the filmmaker are so great, why won't it get picked up in the states? Is it the subject matter--or the fact that the director is black, and not only Black, but has the nerve to be dark complected too?

We get films in America with dark subject matter regularly, and I get the feeling that if this movie were made by someone like Terrence Malick, we would be reading something different. I am so very, very sick of us being regulated into some f**ked up box. This is one of the very films we need to have shown in the U.S., that shows the versatility and diversity of what a Black filmmaker is capable of.

Iron Man


Iron Man, the first of Marvel Comics' superhero properties to be adapted to the screen through their new in-house production apparatus rather than through licensing, is a strong start for the company's ambitious new effort at cinematic universe-building. Not just economically, although that should be rather obvious from the film's blockbuster performance for the past few weeks, but creatively, in terms of successfully translating a complicated character with a long history into an equally complicated and compelling onscreen hero. The film isn't entirely successful, to be sure — it's especially marred by a silly and over-the-top final battle scene — but it does succeed in the kind of grounded, patient storytelling that Marvel seems to be adapting as the new standard for their film productions.

In particular, Marvel and director Jon Favreau have learned a lot of lessons from Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, which became a new model for superhero filmmaking by keeping its title character in the developmental stages for the entire first half of the film. It signaled a new kind of superhero movie. While older superhero films tended to view the origin story as a bothersome hurdle to jump as fast as possible in order to get to the "good stuff," these new tights-and-capes films are taking a more leisurely, painstaking approach to superhero origins, which inevitably gives the films a more grounded, realistic feel. Just as in Nolan's film we saw millionaire Bruce Wayne slowly accumulate the experience, fighting skill, and technology that would enable him to take on the mantle of Batman, in Iron Man we see Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) building the eponymous suit of armor not just once, but twice. These scenes are grounded in realism and, importantly, in physical process, even if the actual physics and mechanics behind the suit's operation are obscure and fantastic. Even if they could never be real, these scenes still feel real, and that's the crucial touch that brings both Nolan's Batman and Favreau's Iron Man to convincing life. These are both heroes who essentially make themselves through ingenuity and technological progress, rather than with super powers, and it's admirable that both of these films spend considerable time in the workshop with their heroes. In terms of the ratio of screen time given to making the armor suit as opposed to actually using it, Iron Man is a film more about building than about fighting, even if the wanton destruction of the typical urban battle scene at the end tends to obscure that point.

Meanwhile, since Stark spends so much of the film out of his armor, Downey is a very welcome presence here as the man beneath the iron mask. Stark is a great, complicated character: a compulsive womanizer who can even be downright nasty towards his conquests, a budding alcoholic, and yet also a businessman with a conscience, who when he learns of evils committed in his name, decides to actually do something about it. Downey is a surprisingly perfect fit for the role, bringing a sarcastic wit and easygoing screen presence to the conflicted would-be hero. The film shines especially in its humor, an essential aspect of superhero comics that doesn't often translate so well to the screen. But Downey seems equally comfortable with his character's verbal sparring (especially with his perky assistant Pepper Potts, admirably embodied by Gwyneth Paltrow despite her underwritten role) and the film's occasional deadpan physical humor, like a recurring gag with a puppyish robot in Stark's studio, or some painful-looking snags in the development of his suit's propulsion units.

Of course, the film isn't without its own snags, most notably on the villain front. Many have pointed out how the film's Afghani warlords are essentially stock Hollywood "darkies," fitting the evil dark-skinned mold perhaps too perfectly. But it's worth pointing out that not only are these evil terrorists depicted as terrorizing their own (also dark-skinned) innocent civilians, they're shown to be doing so with American-made weapons, supplied directly from American companies. Moreover, these villains don't wind up dying in an explosive final dust-up with Iron Man, but rather die off-screen, eliminated by American political expediency once their purpose had been served. The real villain here isn't the dark other or the stock Arab terrorist, but the American weapons manufacturers who supply these evil men, and the American political complacency that allows such atrocities to occur routinely as long as US interests are protected. This bit of real-world political mirroring goes some way towards defusing the accusations of stock racism, and it's important to remember that even though the film's political message is sometimes obscured and confused, it always remains basically an anti-war polemic about a weapons manufacturer who decides not to make weapons anymore.

I have more reservations about Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) as a villain, though in that case not because of any problematic racial elements. He's simply a boring enemy, as melodramatic as a soap opera's evil twin brother, and almost as unlikely. He's especially unconvincing in the inevitable final showdown with Iron Man, which eschews the slightly more restrained and realistic battle scenes of earlier in the film for a full-on superhero urban destruction scenario, complete with cars hurtling through the air, buildings recklessly smashed, and iron suits flying everywhere. And what to say about the ridiculous processed voice that Stane has when he's encased in his own armored suit? When a film has to remind us of who the villain is by making his voice sound evil, things are not looking good. It's the only time when the film reminds us of the over-the-top silliness that superhero flicks too often descend to, like the similarly ridiculous Batmobile chase sequence that Nolan unnecessarily shoehorned into Batman Begins. These moments sabotage the tone of these films, which otherwise walk a tight rope between realism and fantasy.

For the most part, though, Iron Man is an auspicious debut for Marvel's in-house film productions. It sets the stage for many things to come in the Marvel film universe, especially in terms of the introduction of S.H.I.E.L.D. and a surprising cameo after the credits, one that will have special relevance for fans of Marvel's Ultimate line, and one that also foreshadows the already-planned Avengers movie for the future. More importantly, it's a fine movie on its own merits, capturing the excitement and adventure of the best superhero tales, bringing both Iron Man and Tony Stark to vivid life. The film's overall tone is perhaps best encapsulated in the scene when Stark first takes his second, slickly designed suit out for a test flight; the joy and excitement on Downey's face, seen inside the suit surrounded by computerized readings, is inevitably passed on to the audience.

Old School Music Friday...

This week's meme is "Remakes", though this version is a kinda mangled one. It is from the film "A Low Down Dirty Shame" with Keenan Wayans and Jada Pinkett, which might be better off left forgotten, just like this so-called remake and it's $56 dollar video. Some classic songs should just be left alone:



I used to see those two chicks around...they were an unlikely and odd duo. I always wondered if they were friends first, or someone put them together for the group...

Old School Music Friday fam: Electronic Village Funky Finga Productions Mrs Grapevine Quick Cassandra Danielle Lisa C Chocl8t DP Kreative Talk MarvalusOne Regina LaShonda AJ Sharon Dee SJP sHaE-sHae songs in the key of life Hagar's Daughter There...Already If I missed anybody, please let me know!

Interesting...

I've never been much of a Mike Epps fan; something about him just rubs me the wrong way, and this pretty much seals it:

Actor/comedian Mike Epps beat the shit out of a process server who was trying to serve him with paternity court papers. Remember back in March when that chick from Georgia said Mike fathered her baby and she wanted him to take a paternity test but he refused? Well homegirl tried to have Mike served backstage at a Louisville Kentucky comedy club and it did not go well. According to police reports, the server says he tried to hand Mike the papers, but got his ass handed to him instead. Dude says he came out of the skirmish with an abrasion to the right side of his head and his left eye swollen shut.*


From IW: Do we really need Maury Povich or Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out? Hello my brothers--it's called a 3 dollar condom...damn!

Trailor For "Traitor"...

Sergio sent over this trailer for Don Cheadle's new one. He thinks it looks pretty promising, tho he laments the fact that the director isn't black.

*sigh* So what else is new? The storyline is this: The story centers on a CIA operative working undercover with a terrorist group who becomes a terrorist suspect. Cheadle is the undercover agent, while Guy Pearce is an FBI agent investigating terrorist activities.

What do you guys think of the trailer?

Ruh Ro!

Oh, snap!! John Edwards just endorsed Barack Obama....


hillBilly is ready to cut somebody!


Update--btw:

“According to the West Virginia surveys, 95 percent of the Democratic primary voters were white, 70 percent did not graduate from college, and 54 percent had household incomes less than $50,000.”

hillBilly indeed.

Random Movie News--Comix Edition

Bear in mind I know almost nothing about comics, and don't really care that much to find out, to be honest. But I know that lots of you out there love them, so here we go...

From beyondhollywood.com:

'Here’s [a] look at Samuel L. Jackson as The Octopus, the main villain in Frank Miller’s upcoming live-action adaptation of Will Eisner’s “The Spirit” comic books. This is not actually our first look at him, but it is our first look at him in costume, if you will, although I’m not sure if a mink coat and gloves qualifies as a “costume”, but there you have it.'

From IW: Hmmm. Anyway, there is this comic book that I've been seeing in a lot of places for free around Hollywood called "Mercy Man". I picked it up, and it turns out to be promotional material about some Latino undercover cop that they are making into a movie. It is being touted as the "first Hispanic hero to root for". I dunno so much about that, but I do know Andre Royo from "The Wire" is in it, so it might be worth a look.






What happened to Common as The Green Lantern? Maybe someone finally woke up and said "Hey guys! Listen up--ummm...I think this might not be such a great idea."


It could happen. Here is what Common has to say about folks critical about rappers taking roles away from "real actors":

‘I’m not a hip-hop dude who wants to act. I’m an artist,’ Common [said], adding that he has his eyes set on an Oscar Award. ‘The Oscar seems very prestigious,’ Common said. ‘With all due respect to the Grammys, there are more music categories and it’s easier to get a ticket to the show. Also if you look at it as someone coming from Chicago, there are only so many black artists who receive Oscars.’

From IW: An Oscar, eh? Umm, yeah...good luck with that...

Really, Jada?

I promise to have some real movie news later today...but at the moment I am enjoying LA sunshine and Sapporo. In the meantime, here is a clip I've been meaning to post ever since I saw it on Undercover Black Man's blog. It is of Jada Pinkett and her "band" Wicked Wisdom on David Letterman. Just....damn.

She scares me now even more than before. All 4'11 of her.

ok, not really; i'd kick her ass, but she's still scary!

Today In B'Days...

Ving Rhames is 49.

Ving Rhames has come a loooong way since "Pulp Fiction". He is one of the most manly actors around, but here is a clip of him far removed from his Stacy Adams pimp daddy image. It is from a movie me and my best gay laugh about all the time, "Holiday Heart" with Alfre Woodard. Worst. Transvestite. Ever.

Weekend B.O.


WEEKEND BOX OFFICE (thanks Sergio!)
May 9–11, 2008 Studio Estimates

1) Iron Man Par. $50,500,000 Total:$177,134,000

2) Speed Racer WB $20,210,000

3) What Happens in Vegas Fox $20,000,000

4) Made of Honor Sony $7,600,000 Total: $26,275,000

5) Baby Mama Uni. $5,766,000 Total: $40,377,000

6) Forgetting Sarah Marshall Uni. $3,778,000 Total: $50,772,000

7) Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay NL $3,155,000 Total: $30,716,000

8) The Forbidden Kingdom LGF $1,900,000 Total:$48,261,000

9) Nim's Island Fox $1,325,000 Total: $44,257,000

10) Redbelt SPC $1,140,000


From IW: That "Iron Man" return is crazy..."Speed Racer" on the other hand, cost $100 million to make, so $20 million opening weekend is not looking good. From the looks of the trailers tho, I can see why it might not work out. Matthew Fox as Racer X? WTF? "What Happens In Vegas?" Kill me now!

Poor Chiwetel Ejiofor. His "Redbelt" made a paltry 1 mil. No wonder Netflix is so popular...who wants to watch the crap they're putting out now? When will Hollywood finally get a f**king clue?

If you want to see a freaking amazing, amazing Chiwetel movie, see "Children Of Men". I saw it yesterday; it was one of the best movies I've seen in a while...Clive Owen is one of the most interesting actors out there (and sexiest), and he killed it in that film. Since it's not Black Cinema, I won't elaborate, but do yourself a big favor and rent this film, stat.


KICK ROCKS!!

The time has come
We don't care how.
But Hillary Rodham Clinton
Will you please GO NOW!

Your campaign is becoming
An endless charade,
So get off the trail,
Burn out now, don't just fade.

You can swim down a river
Of crocodile tears.
You can surf on a wave
Of terrorist fears.

Enough with the red phone!
Enough with the NAFTA!
If you like,
You can go now by White Water Rafta.

Hillary Rodham Clinton,
We don't care how—
HRC,
Will you please GO NOW!

You can leave on McCain's
Straight Talk Express.
You can leave all made up
in a Muslim headdress.

Kucinich will take you
On his UFO
But good God, dear Hillary
Just go go, GO!

You can ride home on coattails
Or in big biz's pocket.
Or maybe you'd like to
Ride NASA's new rocket.

You've raised a gazillion
From execs on Wall Street.
But when it comes to real change,
Barack's got you beat.

You can go by limo
Or lobbyist jet.
You can ride an old donkey
Just get, Hillary, GET!

Your negative ads
Are bringing us down.
You should get off the air,
You should get outta town!

You can go to New York
Or back to The Hill,
But get yourself home….
and don't forget Bill!

Hillary Rodham Clinton,
We don't care how—
HRC
Will you please GO NOW!


From IW: Amen!!


Old School Music Friday-1988

Ironically, this week's theme for Old School Friday was supposed to be movie soundtracks, and I am the only one blogging about something else. 1988 is a year that I remember more for it's art than it's music. Modern artists born out of the graffiti age were coming into notoriety, Basquiat and Keith Haring most notably. I remember feeling a lot of love for the up and coming New York artists.

As far as the music...well, let's just say there was a lot less love. When I looked over the top 100 songs of 1988, I saw a list of songs that either I didn't remember, couldn't care less about, or absolutely hated. Who the f**k was Will To Power? They were in the top 10.

There were songs on there that I really used to loathe, and still do. I did, and will now, change the station when I hear them, especially "Gett Outta My Dreams" by Billy Ocean, "Pink Cadillac" by Aretha Franklin, and "Never Gonna Give You Up" by Rick Astley. The last one I swear they played every 8 minutes in rotation. I also think I was the only Black person in America that didn't think Anita Baker was the second coming.

Songs ranged from the blandly corny; "Fast Cars" by Tracey Chapman, to the blandly poppie "Girlfriend" by Pebbles. Even the reggae was watered down--"Red Red Wine" by UB40. No wonder "Welcome To The Jungle" was so hugely popular; it was the only song that could keep you awake that year. Thank God for the wave of new styled music that came soon afterward.

I did like Keith Sweat's "I Want Her", but who didn't? I also liked this one, which was used once by my old school music fam, but it is a classic, and I still would listen to it all day:



By the way, for those of you that might be interested, I will be on WFMU with Billy Jam and Michael Gonzales about the year 1988 between 3-6pm EST today. You have to check their website to see if it will be streamed. Here is a list of the others that are scheduled to drop in; hope to have you come by and take a listen:

1. Lisa Cortes, former Def Jam ex./current film producer for Lee Daniels Entertainment

2. Todd Craig, writer and teacher/has written a literary hip-hop novel called "tor'ca" (swank books)http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=158723809&MyToken=d34472d0-be10-433b-ae3d-9f337b7c6274

3. Steve Flemming, music blogger :http://auralexamination.wordpress.com/

4. Marcus Reeves, author of Somebody Scream (he might be in the studio with us)http://www.amazon.com/Somebody-Scream-Musics-Prominence-Aftershock/dp/0571211402/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books
&qid=1210090372&sr=1-1


5. Donnell Alexander, author & editor/"Rollin' With Dre"http://www.donnellalexander.com/books

6. Serena Kim/ former Vibe editor, writer

7. Miles Marshall Lewis, writer and editor

8. Bill Adler, hip-hop renaissance man

9. Amy Linden, writer (tentative)

Me And 1988....(Part 2)

1988 was not a banner year for Black Cinema. Incredibly, less than a decade after the Blaxploitation explosion of the 70's, there were only 3 Black films in the top 50 for 1988, and even one of them is being generous calling it Black (Colors) as the leads were non-black. The other two were "Coming To America", a huge reader favorite, and "Action Jackson", which I wrote about once HERE

Here is a clip from "Coming To America" (which was may be the last time I thought Eddie was funny in a movie). It is the Soul Glo commercial; showing that huge embarrassment of the 80's, the Jheri Curl--which an unfortunate minority carried on into the 90's:

Me and 1988....

I pondered for a few days about how I could write about this, but every idea I came up with seemed stale. So, being the last minute slacker that I am, I decided to just shoot from the hip and write about my perspective of this year free flowing...

That year I was dating a very well known film director, who I have actually written about on this blog. Don't bother to ask who it is, the only reason I mention it at all is because it is so relevant to what was going on with me in 1988.

That year I was the prototype of young and dumb, with a capital Y & D. I was book smart, for sure, as I'd always been, but when it came to real life I was completely clueless, though I left home at 17. When I look back on it now, I know that it was only by God's good graces that I am still alive.

Along with my complete naivete came a huge capacity for useless knowledge. It was around this time that I began realizing that I was quite the pop culture addict, as well as having a love for fairly superficial things--fashion for example. When I met this director, I think he was mildly fascinated with me because I was completely and totally full of fluff. He probably spent half of his time with me wondering if I was for real or not. Unfortunately, I was, haha.

I was mildly fascinated with him because for the first time, he made me see the political aspects in everything. I was, at that time, very reflective of the climate of our nation. It was pre New Jack City, Boys N' The Hood, Menace To Society. It was pre concious rap, even pre hardcore gangsta rap. We were living in a society as we were for a few decades; everyone listened to black and white music equally, and the films that we looked at weren't alarming in any way, shape, or form.

This director would do his best to ask me questions about how I saw things, and try to make me see that there was always danger in complacency. Case in point, one of the biggest songs of that year was "Don't Worry, Be Happy". He made me see how a song as seemingly innocuous as that was really just an opium for the people. I know now, of course, that life is what you make it, and everybody sets the bar for their own realities. His realities were no more real to me then as mine were to him. I was untouched by the roughness of life then, and that was my reality. We would have lengthy conversations about whether Terrence Trent D'arby/Michael Jackson/George Michael were gay, but he would also give me soliloquies about why we should never lay down as a people, and why it was so important to stir thing up again, something that really hadn't happened since the early 70's. He started opening my eyes in a way that set the tone for how I feel about race and politics to this day.

To me this year was probably the last of it's kind in complacency and crossover mentality. In the next couple of years we would get films and music that would challenge the status quo, never to look back again. The top 10 films of that year were pure 100% sugar water, for sure, but they were breakouts for more than a few stars whose careers thrive even brighter today:

1) Rain Man (Tom Cruise)

2) Who Framed Roger Rabbit

3) Coming To America (Eddie Murphy)

4) Big (Tom Hanks)

5) Twins

6) Crocodile Dundee 2

7) Die Hard (Bruce Willis)

8) The Naked Gun: From The Files Of Police Squad!

9) Cocktail (Tom Cruise)

10) Beetlejuice

As you can see, complete complacency and crossover. Even Patrick Swayze had a song hit that year. More on 1988 to come.....



Terrence Watch! Part 15: (Reader Email Edition)

Received these 2 emails about my beloved. The first one is from cdnyc07 aka nic:

First let me say, I really enjoy your site. It's one of the few blogs on the internet that doesn't focus solely on celebrity gossip, but you give us other more important things to discuss and think about. Keep up the good work!!! Now on to the foolishness:

I stumbled across this quote from your beloved Terrence Howard from last night's premiere of 'Iron Man' in L.A. And I thought...who would enjoy this more than The Invisible Woman.

Terrence Howard on gay rumors in Hollyweird:

I remember when I first heard online that Will Smith was gay, I was like, “Oh…that’s possible, I guess.” But then when I read online that I was gay, I was like, “Oh, who the hell came up with that?” The eccentricity of being an individual is always gonna make you separate from the rest of everybody else, and you have to be okay with that. But I set out to see the world through my own eyes, experience it and taste the world for myself, instead of having someone else tell me this is what the world tastes like.I want to know, I need to know just for my own sake of being me at the end of the day. I’m kind of glad I’m eccentric if that is what I am. I just think I’m human. I think I’m an individual human like anybody else.

Let us pray!!!

Nic


The second one is from Sergio:

I was talking to a friend of mine the other about black actors and we realized what is it that these black British actors like Chiiwetel Ejiofor, Eamonn Walker and Idris Elba have that brothers here don't? Oh yeah and don't forget Delroy Lindo. Did you know he's British too born in London? We're talking some real masculinity here. Instead here we're got Terrence Howard and Tyler Perry.

Case closed.

Sergio


From IW: Let me say this: if you go walking around in bare feet while wearing a 3-piece suit (as one blogger told me he saw him do), or you go around showing people your "rainbow colored" notebooks of you "writing backwards, to show how you think different about things" (which this blogger also told me he said), or you say your very successful acting career is a "curse" cause you really wanted to sing (which he said, "bitterly" the reporter wrote), you might be toeing the line from "eccentric" to "downright weird". Call me crazy.

Also, if you say men should start showing and stating their love to one another and not be afraid, and you go around encouraging men in a film to go commando while personally sporting your one inch ding ding for the world to see, and you say you feel "unclean" after having sex, and you constantly wear a murse *man-purse* at all times, you might be venturing from "eccentric" to "hella zesty". Not that there's anything wrong with that, haha.

In other words, agreed Nic and Sergio.


By the way guys; I am dedicating my blog tomorrow to the year 1988. I am doing a radio show with Michael Gonzales and some others about the year, and we are all writing about it as well. Full details tomorrow...

This N That

Hello all. I really missed you guys. I'm sorry I haven't been posting, but yours truly has been really busy. Unfortunately, it isn't spending lottery winnings. *sigh*. But I will tell you I am glad to be home, and have never been so happy to see palm trees in my whole life...

I'll put up a post tonight, but probably won't be able to answer your comments till tomorrow. And to my Old School Friday fam, I'm back in action this week.


I haven't been on the blogs, but how can you not hear about that Mimi/Nick Cannon debacle? And I thought he was lucky playing Arthur Ashe. That mofo has hit the lotto! All I can say is good luck to both of them. And oh, Nick's ding ding must be made of gold and diamonds.


While traveling I was watching CNN in an airport, and lo and behold there was an interview with Sidney Poitier by Larry King. Only Larry King can make a conversation with one of the most historic black actors ever seem like a calculus class. So freakin' boring!

There was one interesting tidbit, tho. Sidney told a story about how he came upon his first audition cause he saw an ad in a newspaper. He thought it was just a regular job, cause it was posted next to the dishwasher jobs he was looking at. Anyhoo, he goes to the audition, and he doesn't even know how to read! It is hard to believe, as one would think Sidney came out of the womb reading a book. The audition guy basically kicked him out and told him he was an idiot.

Sidney left, but the more he thought about it, the more pissed he became until he was enraged. He was angry that this man would treat him that way, and vowed that he wouldn't let the experience define who he was. He was not going to let this man think he was justified in saying he was a horrible actor, and a horrible person, and set out to prove him wrong. I think that mission was definitely accomplished.


For my Philly folkses:


Reelblack’s BEST IN PHILLY SHORT FILM SHOWCASE

Reelblack concludes it’s Fifth Season with a special program showcasing some of the best new work by filmmakers of color in the Tri-state area.

Come for an exciting night of narrative, documentary, PSA, music video and animation by filmmakers Shannon Newby, Fantz T. Excellent, Nadine Patterson, Patrick Pierre Belinda M. Wilson, Rick Morris, Bryan Green, Roz Fulton, Akbar Azziz & Mamie Young, Tim Greene, Mike D. Ben Foster and Joseph H. Lewis III & Eugene Haynes. Discover the next wave of visual storytellers raised on cheesesteaks, pretzels and Schuylkill punch.

Tuesday May 13 at 7pm (doors 6:30) INTERNATIONAL HOUSE 3701 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 215-387-5125 Admission $5 students & members/ $7.00 Adults. Visit http://www.reelblack.com/ for details.



For the ladies (and some men); click HERE to read my beloved Sergio's interview with my fifth husband Chiwetel Ejiofor.



And finally, can someone please, please, please tell Hillary to go the f**k away? You know your campaign is in trouble if there are Barak Obama signs posted all over Texas (like I saw earlier this week). Texas for chrissakes!

Her arrogance is maddening...basically in my eyes it boils down to her thinking "I know they are never gonna make this ni**er president, not in this lifetime. So I'm gonna keep going until everyone else sees it too! I could give a sh*t if it completely implodes the Democratic party."

The problem is, some very important people are starting to make rumbles that it is time for her to kick rocks. Even ol' Bill looked like he was chewing on crushed glass during her Indiana victory speech. And if they keep allowing her to hang around, and if she or that mummy that is McCain wins the presidency, then this country deserves everything it gets, straight up.

Today In B'Days

My second, third, and fourth husband, Dwayne Johnson, aka The Rock is 36.