Possitive Successful BM Roles?

[NoIdea]

I agree that the media shows negative stereotypes of BM, this was discussed on another thread: Adventures in HollyHood. Does the black community as a whole want to see BM in successful positive careers (laywers, doctors, teachers, etc.)?

There was a show called Kevin Hill, Kevin Hill was a black lawyer and had everything together. On black forums they called this character an Uncle Tom, a sellout, and that he acts white. BM having book smarts, working hard in school, and having a successful job makes him white...ok. :roll:

Would people rather have the negative images of gangsters and thugs (MTV and BET) over BM in positive roles? When I mentioned BET I mean BET now, after it was sold to Viacom. What is so bad about this is that this image is shown worldwide. I would like to hear your opinion.

 

[designer]

There is no “Black Community” as a “whole”...
Some black people liked Kevin Hill and some didn't so I'm sure you'll always find black people on all sides of your question.

I, for one would like to see what I call real black people as I know them.
Not the current rash of thugs, pimps and content ghetto dwellers.
It's one thing to come from the ghetto or live there but I wonder about this desire to glorify it both on the corporate level and as individuals.

 

[JamalSpunky]

interesting topic

When it comes to fictional characters I don't think the problem lies as much in the type of professionals or quality of people that black actors are allowed to play. Black actors get plenty of roles in which they are the good guys. Plenty of roles in movies and on TV in which they are the cops, the family man, the scientist, the lawyer, etc. In fact one could argue that black males (and black people in general) are over-represented in roles such as doctors when compared to the percentage of doctors that are black in the USA (meanwhile Asians are clearly underrepresented on that front). I think my fellow African Americans are making a mistake when they trot out the same complaint about playing “pimps, criminals, maids, slaves, hookers, etc”. Just take a look at the most successful and steady-working black actors over the past twenty years. Eddie Murphy. Denzel. Will Smith. Danny Glover. Morgan Freeman. Louis Gossett Jr. Samuel L. Jackson. Laurence Fishburne. Wesley Snipes. Don Cheadle. Jamie Foxx. Forest Whitaker, etc. The vast majority of their roles (and roles of other black actors that I failed to mention) would not fall into the category of the “negative stereotype characters” that I listed above. Most black actors are , even the young ones, are not strictly playing gangbangers. There has been progress on that front despite the complaints of those who feel that there hasn’t been any progress at all.

Let me suggest that what the black community continually gets wrong is that it is too far concerned with the quality of the type of person black actors are portraying rather than caring about the quality of the role itself. For example many black folks love to express their dismay over the fact that Terrence Howard had to play a pimp in “Hustle & Flow” and was nominated for an Oscar to boot (by the way it should be pointed out that movie was the first I can recall a high-profile performance of a black actor playing a pimp since twenty years ago when Morgan Freeman played one in “Street Smart”---and both films were essentially low-budget art films, not big budget Hollywood motion pictures). What some of these folks did not understand was that “Hustle & Flow” not only refused to glamorize the life of a pimp and the prostitution business, but that Terrence Howard played a character that had so many dimensions and layers. A character that was flawed and complicated which required Howard to show a wide range of emotions and acting capabilities, sometimes in the same scene. You see the most interesting characters in films (and especially in books) are those characters with real glaring flaws and human failings. But black people, perhaps justifiably so in some ways, are so concerned with a black character being “positive” that they forget to ask themselves if the character is interesting Even worse is when after having been fed on a diet of uninteresting, non-controversial black characters over the years, that they mistake one-dimensional positive do-gooders (take any Tyler Perry film for example) as being interesting and well-developed characters. Personally, I find the so-called negative black characters on the sensational HBO series "The Wire" to be more well-rounded and better written than the more well-to-do black characters on "Kevin Hill" and "Grey's Anatomy". Nothing against those two shows because I enjoyed them both, but the writing on "The Wire" is just too superior. "The Wire" also has a slew of black "good-guys" that are also better developed. But being positive to me is not as important as being interesting.


Terrence Howard may have improved his status and bank account after getting the Oscar nomination. But I laugh at some black people who think that means he will now be getting work that’s worthy of his talent, which implies H&F was not. Reality check: he may never get another role as interesting and developed as DJay of “Hustle & Flow”. Instead he could get stuck in the Denzel Washington trap. Washington is undoubtedly a great actor. But he is often playing either some historical figure or some cop/agent/military guy. And in the latter roles Washington has not gotten the great scripts that were handed out to Tom Cruse, Tom Hanks and Russell Crowe. Even worse of all despite his looks and charm Washington has been wasted in terms of being a true leading man. He is almost asexual on the screen. Part of it is the fault of Hollywood which undoubtedly puts black male characters in a box, especially when it comes to the heated expression of their sexuality (not horniness---sexuality) around females on the screen. If the biggest black male idol in the world for over a decade is castrated surely other black actors were going to suffer that same fate as well. But Denzel himself is to blame for that position. He has been all too eager to skip out of the typical romantic entanglements on the big screen that leading men are expected to get. This is especially the case when his co-star is a white female. He tends to run for the hills! Maybe DJay’s kiss with Shug towards the end of H&F was a bit over the top, but there was virtually more heat in that moment than Denzel had had with all of his female love interests combined over the years 9with the possible exception of his bit with Eva Mendes in “Training Day”). And while DJay didn’t have a sexual relationship with his white hooker Nola, there was more of an intensity and strong bond and an openness amongst the two of them than I can recall Denzel ever had with any white actress/character. That’s just my opinion.

Let me get back on track. What’s missing in most black roles is depth. And complication. And sophistication. And true sexuality. I am hoping that this current new or emerging wave of black actors will make things different. He’s kind of kooky but Howard has so much damn talent I hope he gets the type of roles that the leading white male stars get. Anthony Mackie has made some terrible choices over the last few years but he also has extraordinary ability and he was bold enough to even play an outright gay haracter in “Brother to Brother”. Not many black actors would do that, especially when it requires them to kiss another man. Chiwetel Ejiofor has great talent as well and because he is British he seems to not be limited (or he doesn’t have the black American shackles around him to allow himself to be limited) to the type of leading ladies he can be involved with on the big screen. That means he can hook up with white female characters without the audience blinking much and, most importantly, without Ejiofor himself worrying too much about what the white male viewers and black female viewers must think. Michael Ealy ahs the talent and looks too but right now is almost exclusively working on TV these days. Besides he is still best known as being Halle’s ex-boyfriend. There are others but my post is already running long as it is.

I will end my thoughts by saying that I Ithink there is more of a problem with the type of black people chosen for reality shows than there are with black fictional characters on mainstream films and on TV.

 

[tonytony]

Re: interesting topic

When it comes to fictional characters I don't think the problem lies as much in the type of professionals or quality of people that black actors are allowed to play. Black actors get plenty of roles in which they are the good guys. Plenty of roles in movies and on TV in which they are the cops, the family man, the scientist, the lawyer, etc. In fact one could argue that black males (and black people in general) are over-represented in roles such as doctors when compared to the percentage of doctors that are black in the USA (meanwhile Asians are clearly underrepresented on that front). I think my fellow African Americans are making a mistake when they trot out the same complaint about playing “pimps, criminals, maids, slaves, hookers, etc”. Just take a look at the most successful and steady-working black actors over the past twenty years. Eddie Murphy. Denzel. Will Smith. Danny Glover. Morgan Freeman. Louis Gossett Jr. Samuel L. Jackson. Laurence Fishburne. Wesley Snipes. Don Cheadle. Jamie Foxx. Forest Whitaker, etc. The vast majority of their roles (and roles of other black actors that I failed to mention) would not fall into the category of the “negative stereotype characters” that I listed above. Most black actors are , even the young ones, are not strictly playing gangbangers. There has been progress on that front despite the complaints of those who feel that there hasn’t been any progress at all.

Let me suggest that what the black community continually gets wrong is that it is too far concerned with the quality of the type of person black actors are portraying rather than caring about the quality of the role itself. For example many black folks love to express their dismay over the fact that Terrence Howard had to play a pimp in “Hustle & Flow” and was nominated for an Oscar to boot (by the way it should be pointed out that movie was the first I can recall a high-profile performance of a black actor playing a pimp since twenty years ago when Morgan Freeman played one in “Street Smart”---and both films were essentially low-budget art films, not big budget Hollywood motion pictures). What some of these folks did not understand was that “Hustle & Flow” not only refused to glamorize the life of a pimp and the prostitution business, but that Terrence Howard played a character that had so many dimensions and layers. A character that was flawed and complicated which required Howard to show a wide range of emotions and acting capabilities, sometimes in the same scene. You see the most interesting characters in films (and especially in books) are those characters with real glaring flaws and human failings. But black people, perhaps justifiably so in some ways, are so concerned with a black character being “positive” that they forget to ask themselves if the character is interesting Even worse is when after having been fed on a diet of uninteresting, non-controversial black characters over the years, that they mistake one-dimensional positive do-gooders (take any Tyler Perry film for example) as being interesting and well-developed characters. Personally, I find the so-called negative black characters on the sensational HBO series "The Wire" to be more well-rounded and better written than the more well-to-do black characters on "Kevin Hill" and "Grey's Anatomy". Nothing against those two shows because I enjoyed them both, but the writing on "The Wire" is just too superior. "The Wire" also has a slew of black "good-guys" that are also better developed. But being positive to me is not as important as being interesting.



.

bullshit, yet another example of why hollywood continues to pigeon hole black men. we want a shift in the way we are represented. The lazy script writers and passive racists like yourself seem to think that the only way to make black men interesting is to turn them into thugs or crooks.
Denzel washington just so you know is a near certainty for box office success in anything he does. he doesnt take roles that are demeaning towards black men or roles that reinforce stereotypes that make it harder for a black man to get on in the real world.
You could argue that 50 cent is more interesting than common because he is more violent, we all know that isnt the case. THe whole point of today is that we as black men are asking to be better represented and respected we want more variety in our roles. Denzel and will show that its possible to not take on roles that suggests we are only thugs or crooks, they show black men in more positive roles that are also equally interesting. And just so you know the characters in Greys anatomy are very interesting and at least show that not all black people speak in ebonics or are lackeys for the white man.

the only thing I will agree with is the part on sexuality, because black men in hollywood for the most are always seemingly castrated especially if there love interest is white.

I will however concede that you

 

[designer]

Re: interesting topic

Let me suggest that what the black community continually gets wrong is that it is too far concerned with the quality of the type of person black actors are portraying rather than caring about the quality of the role itself. For example many black folks love to express their dismay over the fact that Terrence Howard had to play a pimp in “Hustle & Flow” and was nominated for an Oscar to boot (by the way it should be pointed out that movie was the first I can recall a high-profile performance of a black actor playing a pimp since twenty years ago when Morgan Freeman played one in “Street Smart”---and both films were essentially low-budget art films, not big budget Hollywood motion pictures). What some of these folks did not understand was that “Hustle & Flow” not only refused to glamorize the life of a pimp and the prostitution business, but that Terrence Howard played a character that had so many dimensions and layers. A character that was flawed and complicated which required Howard to show a wide range of emotions and acting capabilities, sometimes in the same scene. You see the most interesting characters in films (and especially in books) are those characters with real glaring flaws and human failings. But black people, perhaps justifiably so in some ways, are so concerned with a black character being “positive” that they forget to ask themselves if the character is interesting Even worse is when after having been fed on a diet of uninteresting, non-controversial black characters over the years, that they mistake one-dimensional positive do-gooders (take any Tyler Perry film for example) as being interesting and well-developed characters. Personally, I find the so-called negative black characters on the sensational HBO series "The Wire" to be more well-rounded and better written than the more well-to-do black characters on "Kevin Hill" and "Grey's Anatomy". Nothing against those two shows because I enjoyed them both, but the writing on "The Wire" is just too superior. "The Wire" also has a slew of black "good-guys" that are also better developed. But being positive to me is not as important as being interesting.

The problem I see with what you said here is in your compare and contrast of “good guy roles” vs “bad guy roles”.
If you show me a script where the “bad guys” are multi-layered and the so called good guys are boring, I'll show you a lazy writer.
This is what I mean when I talk about real people.
I like to think I'm a good guy but I learned awhile back that you don't need to seek out strife and conflict as that's just a natural part of life. How you handle those unforeseen conflicts is were your character develops and not just in taking the “controversial” approach.
Moreover, I'll say that the believe of good equates to dull and controversy equals excitement, is what has gotten us on this love of all things base.
When the lowest common denominator becomes the pinnacle of success, we have become too blind to see any true character.

I will agree that many black actors are in non-thug roles however you don't need to look far to see that the "gangsta" life is push to the forefront in pop culture today.

 

[JamalSpunky]

Re: interesting topic

bullshit, yet another example of why hollywood continues to pigeon hole black men. we want a shift in the way we are represented. The lazy script writers and passive racists like yourself seem to think that the only way to make black men interesting is to turn them into thugs or crooks.
Denzel washington just so you know is a near certainty for box office success in anything he does. he doesnt take roles that are demeaning towards black men or roles that reinforce stereotypes that make it harder for a black man to get on in the real world.
You could argue that 50 cent is more interesting than common because he is more violent, we all know that isnt the case. THe whole point of today is that we as black men are asking to be better represented and respected we want more variety in our roles. Denzel and will show that its possible to not take on roles that suggests we are only thugs or crooks, they show black men in more positive roles that are also equally interesting. And just so you know the characters in Greys anatomy are very interesting and at least show that not all black people speak in ebonics or are lackeys for the white man.

the only thing I will agree with is the part on sexuality, because black men in hollywood for the most are always seemingly castrated especially if there love interest is white.

Do you have a reading problem? If not I suggest you read my post again. Calling a black man like myself a passive racist or suggesting that I only want black characters that are inner city thugs shows me that you did not understand my point. I did not write that the only way to make a black man interesting was to make him a criminal. Instead I wrote that just because a character is positive does not make the character interesting or complex. Change the focus of the argument and the whining. What we want (or at least what I want) are three dimensional, multi-layered characters whether they be cop, single father, lawyer, accountant, athlete, singer, crrok, gangster. The quality of the role (not the type of person the character is) ultimately what should be most interesting to an actor. The top white actors get to play interesting characters whether they are good guys or bad guys. Black actors though tend to get the leftover scripts. I don't care how many positive plicemen Denzel gets to play. I don't care anymore whether he plays an upstanding citizen. I've moved beyond that. I care most about that he gets a sophisticated role that he can really sink his teeth into (can this be said of Deja Vu, Out of Time or The Bone Collector? I think not.) I don't deny Washington's talents but he has in a way been put into a box. Much of that is on Hollywood, and some of it falls sqaurely on Denzel because he chose to play it safe for much of his career. If he felt the need to do so because he wanted to set an example for black actors and black people then God bless him. But it has cost him at times artistically and in terms of the diversity of roles IMO. Granted Holywood won't cough up diverse roles to black actors easily. But Denzel over the years had gained enough clout to demand a wider range of characters or at least turn down the same old standard cop-like characters that he has played repeatedly over the years.

About a decade ago Washington went to the press and complained that he doesn't get a chance to play the romantic leading man; he didn't get those scripts he pointed out. Well, yes and no. In a few movies in which his character was originally written to woo his female lead, Washington has the director/producers get rid of the romantic angle. In Mo Better Blues he didn't want to the love scenes with the two female co-stars because, a she told Spike Lee, he was a "family man" and didn't want to perform such acts on the screen(which weren't going to be explicit mind you). It got so ridiculous he decided (demanded) to keep his shirt on when he was rolling around in the bed with his co-star! How does Hollywood, which already has a hard time picturing black actors as romantic leading men, consider him for romantic roles or sexy roles when he goes out of his way to show he ain't interested; that's he's unwilling to do what's required. He got rid of relationships and love scenes in scripts involving white women because he was afarid to offend white male viewers. There are words for this. Sexless. Cowardice. Safe. He has loosened up somewhat recently but when he first made those complaints about his lack of romantic opportunities it was during a time in which he was just as (if not more) responsible for being limited on that front as Hollywood itself was.

Billy Dee Williams isn't/wasn't half the actor that Denzel is but at least Williams did not run away from his idol image and his effect on women. He ran with it and tried to open doors and new possibilities for black actors as suave leading men with sexual heat that burns through the screen. Denzel meanwhile spent to much time acting as if having a penis was a bad thing.

And let me ask you this...if you are a man with Washington's clout and stature and resources ($$$), then why not pay handsomely some damn screenwriters to develop such scripts for him? Come on.

By the way how the hell did you bring 50 Cent and his nonsense into this discussion? I am not a fan of rappers becoming actors unless they put in years of work (On TV, on stage, in small roles in films). I don't buy tickets for or think much of gangsta flicks/urban flicks unless the material is superb. Menace II Society is a great work of cinema. So is "The Wire." So is "City of God." The rest, even "Boyz N the Hood, are tiresome and cliched. Don't get me confused with some fool who only likes garbage urban motion pictures. But I also am not one to get al that thrilled over bland, feel-good black dramas like "Soul Food" either. I have a high standard for films which is why these days I look mostly at arthouse films, independent movies, or foreign films.

 

[tonytony]

Re: interesting topic

bullshit, yet another example of why hollywood continues to pigeon hole black men. we want a shift in the way we are represented. The lazy script writers and passive racists like yourself seem to think that the only way to make black men interesting is to turn them into thugs or crooks.
Denzel washington just so you know is a near certainty for box office success in anything he does. he doesnt take roles that are demeaning towards black men or roles that reinforce stereotypes that make it harder for a black man to get on in the real world.
You could argue that 50 cent is more interesting than common because he is more violent, we all know that isnt the case. THe whole point of today is that we as black men are asking to be better represented and respected we want more variety in our roles. Denzel and will show that its possible to not take on roles that suggests we are only thugs or crooks, they show black men in more positive roles that are also equally interesting. And just so you know the characters in Greys anatomy are very interesting and at least show that not all black people speak in ebonics or are lackeys for the white man.

the only thing I will agree with is the part on sexuality, because black men in hollywood for the most are always seemingly castrated especially if there love interest is white.

Do you have a reading problem? If not I suggest you read my post again. Calling a black man like myself a passive racist or suggesting that I only want black characters that are inner city thugs shows me that you did not understand my point. I did not write that the only way to make a black man interesting was to make him a criminal. Instead I wrote that just because a character is positive does not make the character interesting or complex. Change the focus of the argument and the whining. What we want (or at least what I want) are three dimensional, multi-layered characters whether they be cop, single father, lawyer, accountant, athlete, singer, crrok, gangster. The quality of the role (not the type of person the character is) ultimately what should be most interesting to an actor. The top white actors get to play interesting characters whether they are good guys or bad guys. Black actors though tend to get the leftover scripts. I don't care how many positive plicemen Denzel gets to play. I don't care anymore whether he plays an upstanding citizen. I've moved beyond that. I care most about that he gets a sophisticated role that he can really sink his teeth into (can this be said of Deja Vu, Out of Time or The Bone Collector? I think not.) I don't deny Washington's talents but he has in a way been put into a box. Much of that is on Hollywood, and some of it falls sqaurely on Denzel because he chose to play it safe for much of his career. If he felt the need to do so because he wanted to set an example for black actors and black people then God bless him. But it has cost him at times artistically and in terms of the diversity of roles IMO. Granted Holywood won't cough up diverse roles to black actors easily. But Denzel over the years had gained enough clout to demand a wider range of characters or at least turn down the same old standard cop-like characters that he has played repeatedly over the years.

About a decade ago Washington went to the press and complained that he doesn't get a chance to play the romantic leading man; he didn't get those scripts he pointed out. Well, yes and no. In a few movies in which his character was originally written to woo his female lead, Washington has the director/producers get rid of the romantic angle. In Mo Better Blues he didn't want to the love scenes with the two female co-stars because, a she told Spike Lee, he was a "family man" and didn't want to perform such acts on the screen(which weren't going to be explicit mind you). It got so ridiculous he decided (demanded) to keep his shirt on when he was rolling around in the bed with his co-star! How does Hollywood, which already has a hard time picturing black actors as romantic leading men, consider him for romantic roles or sexy roles when he goes out of his way to show he ain't interested; that's he's unwilling to do what's required. He got rid of relationships and love scenes in scripts involving white women because he was afarid to offend white male viewers. There are words for this. Sexless. Cowardice. Safe. He has loosened up somewhat recently but when he first made those complaints about his lack of romantic opportunities it was during a time in which he was just as (if not more) responsible for being limited on that front as Hollywood itself was.

Billy Dee Williams isn't/wasn't half the actor that Denzel is but at least Williams did not run away from his idol image and his effect on women. He ran with it and tried to open doors and new possibilities for black actors as suave leading men with sexual heat that burns through the screen. Denzel meanwhile spent to much time acting as if having a penis was a bad thing.

And let me ask you this...if you are a man with Washington's clout and stature and resources ($$$), then why not pay handsomely some damn screenwriters to develop such scripts for him? Come on.

By the way how the hell did you bring 50 Cent and his nonsense into this discussion? I am not a fan of rappers becoming actors unless they put in years of work (On TV, on stage, in small roles in films). I don't buy tickets for or think much of gangsta flicks/urban flicks unless the material is superb. Menace II Society is a great work of cinema. So is "The Wire." So is "City of God." The rest, even "Boyz N the Hood, are tiresome and cliched. Don't get me confused with some fool who only likes garbage urban motion pictures. But I also am not one to get al that thrilled over bland, feel-good black dramas like "Soul Food" either. I have a high standard for films which is why these days I look mostly at arthouse films, independent movies, or foreign films.

at least you show your not a brain dead, hiphopper coming out here to qualify thug life on screen.
you make alot of good points, but I cannot agree with you about positive black roles. What you say about denzel is entirely true because he is a coward, but at the same time he has at least helped to create a more humane face for black men, not every script or role he plays is going to be interesting, same goes for clooney, pitt or even tom hanks(the quintessential good guy), denzel roles are varied, dignified and above all else enjoyable, the way he represents us on screen is positive and even will smiths role in the pursuit of happyness will make it easier for brothas who go for interviews in the city to be visualised in that role, I will be stockbroker in 6 months I have an offer ( I havent accepted yet), and one of the things that was joked about by the interviewer was will smiths role in the film, every actor wants juicy roles but as black men our screen idols sadly have an effect on the way we are percieved in society by white, asians, latinos and to a lesser extent other blacks, for this reason people like denzel and will smith who decide to use their platform to showcase the positive multidimensional side of black men in society should always be applauded.

So while I acknowledge some of your points I cannot entirely agree with them, its true that Denzel should have done more to help prevent black men being cast as asexual or being sexually castrated on screen, but that by itself should not take away from the great work he has done in allowing hollywood to see the potential boxoffice reciepts black men can bring at the box office.

 

[LaydeezmanCris]

Re: interesting topic

bullshit, yet another example of why hollywood continues to pigeon hole black men. we want a shift in the way we are represented. The lazy script writers and passive racists like yourself seem to think that the only way to make black men interesting is to turn them into thugs or crooks.
Denzel washington just so you know is a near certainty for box office success in anything he does. he doesnt take roles that are demeaning towards black men or roles that reinforce stereotypes that make it harder for a black man to get on in the real world.
You could argue that 50 cent is more interesting than common because he is more violent, we all know that isnt the case. THe whole point of today is that we as black men are asking to be better represented and respected we want more variety in our roles. Denzel and will show that its possible to not take on roles that suggests we are only thugs or crooks, they show black men in more positive roles that are also equally interesting. And just so you know the characters in Greys anatomy are very interesting and at least show that not all black people speak in ebonics or are lackeys for the white man.

the only thing I will agree with is the part on sexuality, because black men in hollywood for the most are always seemingly castrated especially if there love interest is white.

Do you have a reading problem? If not I suggest you read my post again. Calling a black man like myself a passive racist or suggesting that I only want black characters that are inner city thugs shows me that you did not understand my point. I did not write that the only way to make a black man interesting was to make him a criminal. Instead I wrote that just because a character is positive does not make the character interesting or complex. Change the focus of the argument and the whining. What we want (or at least what I want) are three dimensional, multi-layered characters whether they be cop, single father, lawyer, accountant, athlete, singer, crrok, gangster. The quality of the role (not the type of person the character is) ultimately what should be most interesting to an actor. The top white actors get to play interesting characters whether they are good guys or bad guys. Black actors though tend to get the leftover scripts. I don't care how many positive plicemen Denzel gets to play. I don't care anymore whether he plays an upstanding citizen. I've moved beyond that. I care most about that he gets a sophisticated role that he can really sink his teeth into (can this be said of Deja Vu, Out of Time or The Bone Collector? I think not.) I don't deny Washington's talents but he has in a way been put into a box. Much of that is on Hollywood, and some of it falls sqaurely on Denzel because he chose to play it safe for much of his career. If he felt the need to do so because he wanted to set an example for black actors and black people then God bless him. But it has cost him at times artistically and in terms of the diversity of roles IMO. Granted Holywood won't cough up diverse roles to black actors easily. But Denzel over the years had gained enough clout to demand a wider range of characters or at least turn down the same old standard cop-like characters that he has played repeatedly over the years.

About a decade ago Washington went to the press and complained that he doesn't get a chance to play the romantic leading man; he didn't get those scripts he pointed out. Well, yes and no. In a few movies in which his character was originally written to woo his female lead, Washington has the director/producers get rid of the romantic angle. In Mo Better Blues he didn't want to the love scenes with the two female co-stars because, a she told Spike Lee, he was a "family man" and didn't want to perform such acts on the screen(which weren't going to be explicit mind you). It got so ridiculous he decided (demanded) to keep his shirt on when he was rolling around in the bed with his co-star! How does Hollywood, which already has a hard time picturing black actors as romantic leading men, consider him for romantic roles or sexy roles when he goes out of his way to show he ain't interested; that's he's unwilling to do what's required. He got rid of relationships and love scenes in scripts involving white women because he was afarid to offend white male viewers. There are words for this. Sexless. Cowardice. Safe. He has loosened up somewhat recently but when he first made those complaints about his lack of romantic opportunities it was during a time in which he was just as (if not more) responsible for being limited on that front as Hollywood itself was.

Billy Dee Williams isn't/wasn't half the actor that Denzel is but at least Williams did not run away from his idol image and his effect on women. He ran with it and tried to open doors and new possibilities for black actors as suave leading men with sexual heat that burns through the screen. Denzel meanwhile spent to much time acting as if having a penis was a bad thing.

And let me ask you this...if you are a man with Washington's clout and stature and resources ($$$), then why not pay handsomely some damn screenwriters to develop such scripts for him? Come on.

By the way how the hell did you bring 50 Cent and his nonsense into this discussion? I am not a fan of rappers becoming actors unless they put in years of work (On TV, on stage, in small roles in films). I don't buy tickets for or think much of gangsta flicks/urban flicks unless the material is superb. Menace II Society is a great work of cinema. So is "The Wire." So is "City of God." The rest, even "Boyz N the Hood, are tiresome and cliched. Don't get me confused with some fool who only likes garbage urban motion pictures. But I also am not one to get al that thrilled over bland, feel-good black dramas like "Soul Food" either. I have a high standard for films which is why these days I look mostly at arthouse films, independent movies, or foreign films.

 

[Soulthinker]

I know Mario Van Peebles don't have the clout like Washington's but I'm glad he was able to make films and have love scenes with WW. Denzel should learn from him.

 

[nobledruali]

I am not a fan of rappers becoming actors unless they put in years of work (On TV, on stage, in small roles in films).

:shock:...:?

 

[JamalSpunky]

I am not a fan of rappers becoming actors unless they put in years of work (On TV, on stage, in small roles in films).

:shock:...:?

Instead of letting emoticons do your talking, let me know what beef you have with that statement.

From wheaere I'm standing I don't see Hollywood resorting to lazy casting by going after white singers repatedly to act. Sure there are white musicians who get acting roles (always have, always will be). But based on proportions it never got out of hand as it did during the late 90s and early 2000s when Hollywood decided to overlook rising black actors and went after a bunch of hip hop artists instead (most of whom were only good at playing themseleves rather than an actual character). White folks in Hollywood love to disvover The Next Big Thing, specifically white male stars. They would never think to just rely so heavily on a pool of white rock singers or white pop stars to cast in their films. They take chances on unknow white actors all the time (in part to discover The Next Big Thing).

Black actors neevr had that luxury. And it must have been frustrating for a lot of the young, unknown black actors to work at their craft and be serious at their craft only to watch a bunch of muisc stars (with very little or no acting experience, who were vieweing acting simply as a secondary pay gig, to be pushed to the head of the line. This is because Hollywood doesn't give a damn about discovering the next Denzel Washington. It never thinks long-term investment and planning when it comes to black acting talent. It got hooked on bringing in dudes like DMX who have about as much range as a snail's spit. Then the media and moviegoers start drinking the kool-aid. A few years back either GQ or Esquire had an article abbout how DMX was going to become the next big box office star. How that turn out?

 

[nobledruali]

I am not a fan of rappers becoming actors unless they put in years of work (On TV, on stage, in small roles in films).

:shock:...:?

Instead of letting emoticons do your talking, let me know what beef you have with that statement.

From wheaere I'm standing I don't see Hollywood resorting to lazy casting by going after white singers repatedly to act. Sure there are white musicians who get acting roles (always have, always will be). But based on proportions it never got out of hand as it did during the late 90s and early 2000s when Hollywood decided to overlook rising black actors and went after a bunch of hip hop artists instead (most of whom were only good at playing themseleves rather than an actual character). White folks in Hollywood love to disvover The Next Big Thing, specifically white male stars. They would never think to just rely so heavily on a pool of white rock singers or white pop stars to cast in their films. They take chances on unknow white actors all the time (in part to discover The Next Big Thing).

Black actors neevr had that luxury. And it must have been frustrating for a lot of the young, unknown black actors to work at their craft and be serious at their craft only to watch a bunch of muisc stars (with very little or no acting experience, who were vieweing acting simply as a secondary pay gig, to be pushed to the head of the line. This is because Hollywood doesn't give a damn about discovering the next Denzel Washington. It never thinks long-term investment and planning when it comes to black acting talent. It got hooked on bringing in dudes like DMX who have about as much range as a snail's spit. Then the media and moviegoers start drinking the kool-aid. A few years back either GQ or Esquire had an article abbout how DMX was going to become the next big box office star. How that turn out?

No beef unless you want to take it that way but simply put if they have the talent and/or are willing to put in the work and most importantly IF THE POWERS THAT BE IN HOLLYWEIRD ARE COOL WITH IT THEN WHY NOT LET THEM ACT I SAY :!: :?: I DON'T CARE EITHER WAY BECAUSE I'M JUST LOOKING TO BE ENTERTAINED. :?

Plus if folks like Denzel & my girl Angela Bassett don't mind being in films with rappers/hip hop artists, then that's good enough for me. :wink:

PS>DMX didn't do that bad in the films that he was in in my opinion. After all the weren't asking him to do Hamlet. CRACK IS WHAT HAPPENED TO DMX MY FRIEND!!!

 

[JamalSpunky]

Fair enough. I don't agree but I respect your opinion. To me it just continued Hollywood's usual disinterest of discovering, harvesting and moding black talent (actors/actresses). In the 70s it were athletes who filled in for serious and trained black actors. In the 80s it was mostly stage comedians getting the gigs. Then, for awhile, it became singers/rappers. It was like white casting directors, producers, etc were more interested in hiring black celebrities that they thought were cool , rather than hiring the best available black talent. "Hey, man, wouldn't it be cool to consider Ice Cube for the role of Frederick Douglass?". "Why don't we cast Richard Pryor as Malcolm X?", etc.

One of my main problems with the rappers and singers is that they aren't truly "hungry". The guys and gals busing tables and doing all sorts of odd jobs in NYC and LA as they wait for that one break to come in, those folks are hungry IMO. They want to be actors. Period. They don't see acting as a hobby to do in between albums or some second job to take for further glory or more money. I may not be fair in characterizing all rappers/singers in that way, but that's how I think most feel. Plus if you are a successful musician and music is your main passion, you are not some starving artist waiting for his/her chance to come. You've already made it. I am not an actor but I feel for those people who devote their lives to the craft of acting but are nonetheless are put at a disadvantage not because they can't act or don't have presence, but because they don't have a singing career or aren't a hip rap artist. White actors don't face that same disadavantage so I was irked by that whole rap-artist-turned-thespian-overnight phase. To me it was insulting. For fast and the Furious, over John Singleton's initial objection the studio chose to give Ludacris the role Michael Ealy was going after. As a result Michael Ealy ahd to accept a smaller role. Now if the gentlemen were white would the studio choose an average looking musician with no acting expereince (at the time) over an up-and-coming pretty boy actor with legit acting ability? Hell, no. But as I mentioned in my last post the studios/Hollywood don't care about developing the next black leading men whic means they did not care about Ealy. They went with the music star.

By the way DMX sucked before the drugs. The guy has little range as an actor. He was only capable of playing a thug or a man of the street. That's fine for someone making his career as a character actor. But for white producers to push him as a lead actor in films was simply more proof of their absurdity.

 

[Boll Onin]

Hey, man, wouldn't it be cool to consider Ice Cube for the role of Frederick Douglass?". "Why don't we cast Richard Pryor as Malcolm X?", etc.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Now if the gentlemen were white would the studio choose an average looking musician with no acting expereince (at the time) over an up-and-coming pretty boy actor with legit acting ability? Hell, no.

what does looks have to do with ability? i know what you are seeing if say these were white actors that they would chose the pretty boy over the musician but that plays into the same thign you are arguing against.

yes those artist who drag and wallow in the mud obscurity are hungry but that does not mean that this automatically affords opportunity.
Using popularity to push an artistic project is not new to hollyweird or the twentieth century.
know that for centuries actors sometimes were picked because of royal lineage or popularity on the royal circuit and at court.

as for this and its effects on black communities role model. The problem with this whole arguement is the need to find them in a medium that is devoid of any true representations.

 

[Soulthinker]

Had you seen the TV Land Awards that featured the 30th Anniversary of Roots? Wished some of those great actors get more hook ups.

 

[tonytony]

I am not a fan of rappers becoming actors unless they put in years of work (On TV, on stage, in small roles in films).

:shock:...:?

From wheaere I'm standing I don't see Hollywood resorting to lazy casting by going after white singers repatedly to act. Sure there are white musicians who get acting roles (always have, always will be). But based on proportions it never got out of hand as it did during the late 90s and early 2000s when Hollywood decided to overlook rising black actors and went after a bunch of hip hop artists instead (most of whom were only good at playing themseleves rather than an actual character). White folks in Hollywood love to disvover The Next Big Thing, specifically white male stars. They would never think to just rely so heavily on a pool of white rock singers or white pop stars to cast in their films. They take chances on unknow white actors all the time (in part to discover The Next Big Thing).

Black actors neevr had that luxury. And it must have been frustrating for a lot of the young, unknown black actors to work at their craft and be serious at their craft only to watch a bunch of muisc stars (with very little or no acting experience, who were vieweing acting simply as a secondary pay gig, to be pushed to the head of the line. This is because Hollywood doesn't give a damn about discovering the next Denzel Washington. It never thinks long-term investment and planning when it comes to black acting talent. It got hooked on bringing in dudes like DMX who have about as much range as a snail's spit. Then the media and moviegoers start drinking the kool-aid. A few years back either GQ or Esquire had an article abbout how DMX was going to become the next big box office star. How that turn out?

Nobledurai and jamal both of you guys are right. I dont even watch a film if its got a rapper as the lead, I want black hollywood to be real, more effort must be made to discover the next denzels or terence howards out there as opposed to just sticking some ignorant ass rapper on screen.

 

[JamalSpunky]

what does looks have to do with ability?

In Hollywood? C'mon. You know better than that. Looks trump abilities the vast majority of the times. I'm not saying all of the goodlooking actors and actresses can't act or aren't great actors. But there are far more talented actors and actresses out there than most of the people working in film and TV today. But those fiolks won't get the same opportunities to work their way up to being an A-list star or one of the leads on a new CSI:spinoff because they don't have "the look." If they get a career its as a character actor who gets bit parts in major films and TV shows or commercials or maybe on stage (particularly Off Broadway). We live in a shallow world in which we gravitate towards looks more than raw ability when it comes to who we prefer watching on screen. That's reality. There are plenty of exceptions, but in most cases the person with the better physical appearnce wins out (unless that person is just damn awful). Its true a beatiful actress who is horrible at delivering lines may not get much work outside some soaps, some CW (formerly WB) shows or bit slutty parts in major films in which are they are required to do is look hot for a minute or so. But a good actress who is stunning to look at will almost definitely beat out a great actress who is average or below average looking (even if the role is that of a nuclear scientist which you would think wouldn't demand that the actress look like a model) when it comes to casting decisions.

Of course in Hollywood you've struck gold when the acrtor/actress has the looks, is very good at acting and has a strong screen prsence. With these characteristics often being subjective to any given viewer, maybe the Golden Globe -nominated and former Halle Berry-boytoy Michael Ealy does or does not fit this tripple-threat standard depending the person being asked. But you gotta admit he is far more of a liklely fit than Ludacris and even had more acting expereince than Ludacris at the time. And yet the studio forced Ealy to take the lesser role. This would not happen if the guys in question were white. Regardless of the size of the role Hollywood execs would favor the good-looking and talented young white actor over an average looking white musician who 1) wasn't exactly a household name and 2)had no expereince at acting.

But this is par for the course because IMO the entertainment industry (film and music especially) is threatened by good-looking black men. But that's a debate for another day.