ब्लैक सिनेमा के इतिहास को ट्रैक करता है, जो मुख्य रूप से 70 के दशक पर केंद्रित है, जिसमें उस युग के कई प्रमुख खिलाड़ियों के साथ अभिलेखीय और नए साक्षात्कार शामिल हैं.ब्लैक सिनेमा के इतिहास को ट्रैक करता है, जो मुख्य रूप से 70 के दशक पर केंद्रित है, जिसमें उस युग के कई प्रमुख खिलाड़ियों के साथ अभिलेखीय और नए साक्षात्कार शामिल हैं.ब्लैक सिनेमा के इतिहास को ट्रैक करता है, जो मुख्य रूप से 70 के दशक पर केंद्रित है, जिसमें उस युग के कई प्रमुख खिलाड़ियों के साथ अभिलेखीय और नए साक्षात्कार शामिल हैं.
- पुरस्कार
- 4 कुल नामांकन
- Narrator
- (वॉइस)
- Self
- (as Louise Archambault Greaves)
- Self
- (as Jim Signorelli)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Couple of comments: this is the directing debut of longtime writer, producer and film critic (including at one point for the New York Times) Eric Mitchell. Here he fondly looks back to the golden years of black film making, which he identifies as 1968 to 1978. And "film making" is to be understood in a broad sense: not just actors, but also producers and directors and anyone else involved directly and indirectly. Everyone knows of the phenom that was "Shaft" but as Mitchell demonstrates, there were so many other noteworthy black films in that era, many of which were made outside of the Hollywood studio system and hence never seen by most of us, including many of the so-called blaxploitation movies ("blaxploitation is the commoditization of blackness", observes one of the talking heads). The works of Gordon Banks and Melvin Van Peebles get extensive attention, and along the way we get dozens and dozens of movie clips, one better/more intriguing than the other. It leads one (or at least me) to want to see these movies. It was amazing for me how quickly these 2 hrs. And 15 min came and went, and a genuine pleasure to watch this from start to finish. Last but not least, in the movie's opening credits, the title is showing as "Is That Black Enough For You?!? How One Decade Forever Changed the Movies (And Me)".
"Is That Black Enough For You?!?" premiered in early October at the new York Film Festival to immediate critical acclaim, and it is currently rated 100% Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, and for good reason. If you have any interest in a slice of movie history which most of us know very little about, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.
One of the more unexpected aspects is it's inclusion of experimental films, from animation to split screen. There is minimal focus on this but it does highlight ambitious storytelling and filmmakers responses to a restrictive system.
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.
Unfortunately, there are two major problems with this documentary. First is it skips over a lot. If not completely skipping it only skims the surface of those films, performers and filmmakers. Some of which it can be argued are more important that a lot that was included. Often they opted to cover & present as more influential fairly obscure films (never even released on DVD) rather than more successful films. Still what it did cover was entertaining.
Second, it made it sound like much of black cinema especially the 1960's to 1980's was only for black film goers. Some of these movies were successful because they also reached a white or other audience. Movies like Shaft, Coffey & others they mentioned were simply excellent movies with excellent performances, period. Funny they kind of mention that Motown music was only for black audience. Ridiculous. Even the Beatles recorded a couple of Motown songs.
I will rate this 7 out of 10, mainly for being entertaining. Plus I did learn about some films I've never heard of.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- गूफ़While discussing द शौशैंक रिडेम्प्शन (1994), the narrator identifies Rita Hayworth as white. Hayworth's real name was Margarita Carmen Cansino, and she was of Romani descent (an Indo-Aryan ethnic group, also known by the term "Gypsies"). She had her name changed, and appearance slightly altered, to aid her career. Prior to that, as Rita Cansino, she had been limited to smaller exotic roles.
On a related note, towards the end of The Shawshank Redemption, Andy has replaced the poster of Rita Hayworth with a poster of Raquel Welch. Welch was born Jo Raquel Tejada, but went by "Raquel Welch" for the sake of her career (to avoid getting trapped into roles available to Latinas). She did not acknowledge her true heritage until she worked on American Family (2002).
- भाव
Harry Belafonte: Not one picture that I turned down did I regret not doing. I didn't resent any of them. I'm glad others got an opportunity and went off and did it, but my initial... First and foremost, I'm an artist. I'm an actor. And I came out of a school with Marlon Brando, Walter Matthau, Rod Steiger, Tony Curtis, with a director that gave us no quarter. I'm not gonna do anything other than what I think is worthy of being done. And fortunately for me, I was a runaway success in the world at large because I had a globe so passionately approving of my presence in their midst that nobody could dismiss the fact that that thing on the horizon called Belafonte could really not be fucked with. Because anytime anybody came up and gave me an ultimatum, I said, "Fuck you. I'm going to Paris. I'll probably live there if I like, but I... I have a destination that answers your denial of what I could be."
- कनेक्शनFeatures A Fool and His Money (1912)
टॉप पसंद
- How long is Is That Black Enough for You?!??Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइट
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- هل يكفيكم هذا السواد؟!؟
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
- चलने की अवधि2 घंटे 15 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण