C'est assez noir pour vous?!?

There's a lot of truths in here, but an awful lot of assumptions made, which is supposed to be the antithesis of this.

Lady Sings The Blues- I was young when my mom took me to see this in the theater. I was 8, but I was told this was an important movie of an historical figure that needed to be implanted into my young mind. I honestly don't recall the makeup of the audience but I do remember the seats being packed, and being angry at the end. My mother explained to me how important Billie was to music today, and how awful humanity can be to one another.

That's a pretty heavy message to lay on an 8-year olds head, but the message was not lost on me. My point is, not every white person was avoiding important black films and during the 70s, racism was being addressed and a lot of white people were horrified. Growing up in and around Madison, WI, there were quite a few black children in my class, and it honestly never occurred to me that they were anything other than classmates, and some were my friends.

As I grew, things like Roots, Blazing Saddles, Mahogany, Car Wash and stealing listens to my dad's Pryor and Red Foxx albums dot my youth and it wasn't ever presented as anything other than entertainment- my parents weren't 'white knighting' for black culture,!there was just pop culture and skin color had nothing to do with it.

Now, make no mistake, I'm certainly not saying there was no racism, no ignorance, stupidity, but not everyone was a racist hilljack from Alabama- it just didn't occur to us to judge anyone by anything other than their character and fortitude.

I find it a little odd that there's not a single reference to Roots- how does one discuss black film and dismiss out of hand this important contribution? I remember being a teen and seeing Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder in a few buddy movies, along with Gregory Hines and Billy Crystal- there was significant overlap in racial viewing, and bands mentioned like EWF, along with other funk bands like Commodores, Sly and the Family Stone, Rick James, etc that had soaring success with as many white fans as black.

It's ironic that Poitier declined to be interviewed for this, and speaks volumes when the producers list includes conspicuously white names like Steven Soderbergh and David Fincher. I'm not sure what purpose is served by this doc, and what the intended consequences are- there's no amount of revisiting the issues that will change the outcomes, and the outcomes intended here aren't necessarily that of truthfulness, either. Billy Dee Williams had a significant impact on the genre of film, as did Sidney Poitier, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, the list goes on and on.

From Bill 'Bogangles' Robinson to Louis Gossett Jr. To Marlene Warfield to Denzel Washington (!), there are quite a number of major artists and performances missing. Yaphet Kotto is mentioned once, but his best performances ('Bone,' 'Report to the Commissioner,' 'Blue Collar') are not seen. Pearl Bailey is never mentioned and Redd Foxx is seen for 2 seconds. You would likely never know that Jim Brown and Fred Williamson were, in the 1970's, supreme sex symbol icons as well as icons of masculinity. Cicely Tyson's storied career is distilled to her Oscar nod for 'Sounder' and an appearance in one other film. Spike Lee's films (even his early work) gets glossed over. So, yes, I have some problems with it. However, I must admit that it is an admirable and sophisticated try. Should've been 3 hours long and they should've allowed the film clips to breath a bit more. A nice primer to whet the appetite of the film student. The initiated will find a number of cinematic holes and missed opportunities.

If been an on and off listener (if I find the guest interesting) of The Treatment for way over a decade by now. So for a long time I've been aware that Elvis Mitchell is a very smart and thoughtful person. When I found out Mitchell did a documentary on Black Cinema I instantly watched it.

The documentary mainly focuses on Blaxploitation movies of the 1970s, basically 1968-76, the introductory bit deals with movies before that time. Killer of Sheep and Symbiopsychotaxiplasm get special non-Blaxploitation mentions. I'm not sure I heard Blaxploitation discussed from an afro-american perspective before, certainly not to this extend. Like most people of my generation I learned of these films first from Tarantino. Who as Mitchell points out here got his start by putting dialogues common in black films into the mouth of his white actors. Which, as much as you might dislike that take, is true. And yes you want so say: But, Samuel L. Jackson... and I tell you: he is not in Reservoir Dogs. Now, is he? He is in this documentary though.

Mitchell make quite a number of other interesting point throughout, highlights some of the forgotten pioneers and gives you a good overview of the film of that time. Unless you are easily offended by black view points and you are interested in movies, this is way worth your time. Does it at times makes points I disagree with. Sure, but I am an adult, I don't need people to agree with me 100% to find it interesting what they have to say. And yes sure it could have talked about more or other movies, but it already crammed a lot into it's run time.

Ps. I read in another review here that is very telling that Sidney Poitier wasn't interviewed for this. No, it isn't. Poitier already quite sick by that time, do your f--ing research. Do you really think Poitier was not aware of the things Mitchell says about his career? I'm a white European and I was aware of them beforehand. Also, if you want to know why Roots isn't discussed, because this is about movies not TV.

Is That Black Enough for You?!? Is a sharp, necessary deep dive into the history of Black cinema, specifically the seismic shift that happened in the late '60s and '70s. Directed and narrated by Elvis Mitchell, the film isn't just a documentary - it's a cultural critique, a love letter to Black artistry, and a long-overdue reckoning with Hollywood's treatment of Black creators.

Mitchell breaks down how Black filmmakers and actors fought to define themselves on screen, pushing past racist tropes and reclaiming space in an industry that never wanted to give them a real seat at the table. He doesn't just highlight classics - he contextualizes them, showing how these films weren't just entertainment but acts of defiance and self-determination. And the archival footage? Incredible. The interviews? Stacked. When you've got Samuel L. Jackson, Laurence Fishburne, and Whoopi Goldberg weighing in, you know it's legit.

Beyond the history, what makes this film so powerful is how it connects the dots to today. Hollywood still sidelines Black voices, still erases contributions, still acts like representation is a trend rather than a necessity. Mitchell makes it clear that these battles aren't new, and that's what makes this documentary so frustrating-but also so important.

If you care about film, Black culture, or just understanding why things are the way they are in Hollywood, Is That Black Enough for You?!? Is essential. It's eye-opening, validating, and at times infuriating, but more than anything, it's a reminder that Black cinema has always been about more than just movies - it's about power.

This documentary starts out interesting with lots of historic facts about the earliest black movies that were made, with lots of interesting interviews by big Hollywood names like Samuel L Jackson, Whoopi Goldberg, Harry Bellafonte and Sidney Poitier.

The bad: but after an hour this documentary veers of into all sorts of directions, becoming disjointed and long in the tooth.

It is as if this director simply had no control over his urge to namedrop as many film classics as possible and then start analysing what was wrong with them.

Recommended watch for the first hour, but I fear not many will stay focussed till the very end, because this documentary unfortunately peters out after the first hour.