![]() Mon, Dec 1, 2008
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
THE MO'KELLY REPORT: To be Ugly, Black and Unbankable(September 30, 2008)
*I'm angry, disappointed and more disillusioned than usual. I just can't let this ago with only a link and AP style coverage of this disheartening story. "An executive told me straight: `Even if he (Forest Whitaker) wins the Oscar he's ugly, he's black and he's unbankable.’" See HERE. Ugly. Black. Unbankable. Note the order and notice how these specific and supposed “three strikes” against Academy Award-winner Forest Whitaker trump any level of talent or awards received due to said talent. Notice how in the world of film, supposedly most impressed by the color green, “bankability” was the third diss listed…not the first. To recapitulate, Academy Award-winning actor Forest Whitaker was summarily disrespected in terms of being cast as the "lead" in an ENSEMBLE CAST movie. As the story reads, the director for the film Winged Creatures had to fight to keep Whitaker attached to the project, leading to the production company, releasing the rights to it altogether before it could be made. The original studio found Whitaker to be… Ugly. Black. Unbankable. And oh yeah, they would rather have either Michael Douglas or Al Pacino instead. That’s probably the anti-anthem to Nina Simone’s Young, Gifted and Black Just for the record, Al Pacino (a wonderful actor in his own right) is by no means “bankable.” So at the risk of sounding more cynical than usual, maybe Pacino is more “preferential” because he is undeniably “not Black” and according to this unnamed executive “not ugly.” But “bankable?” Hardly.
Vantage Point – $72 million (Co-starring role)
The Great Debaters – $31 million (Co-starring role)
Hmm, isn’t Hollywood colorblind in the sense of making money? Isn’t Hollywood concerned only with the color green if any color at all? If so, how is it that this idiot “unnamed executive” didn’t have the common sense to at least do his homework before citing the “bankability” of Al Pacino. Outside of Any Given Sunday ($75 million domestically), Pacino respectfully hasn’t had a hit movie in more than a decade. By that yardstick many, many, many actors could be considered “bankable.” Is it any secret that on average, White actors are a bigger draw than African-American ones? No…Mo’Kelly would never feign such naiveté. But there's a commentary to be had as to why, you can be sure. At the same time, this is an ensemble cast, replete with very well known and respected names. Whitaker would neither have been needed nor expected to carry the film. Guy Pearce, Kate Beckinsale, Dakota Fanning, Jeanne Tripplehorn and Jennifer Hudson. That combination alone, sans Whitaker is a green light for most movies. And what does it say when the prospect of having TWO Academy Award winners (Whitaker and Hudson) who in the same movie is not a meaningful marketing tool? Here’s your answer…it says that once again, the contributions of African-Americans are appreciated absolutely not at all. Not at all. Not that we didn’t already know that, but some people needed to be reminded of this reality. Hollywood isn’t all about the “green,” and it still hasn’t moved beyond the “Black and White” movie era. And some people STILL have the unmitigated gall to question the need for directors like Spike Lee… Ugly. Black. Unbankable.
Well somebody should explain how and why Adrien Brody keeps a job. He's definitely ugly, definitely unbankable and definitely... Uh...you go ahead and finish the sentence. P.S... Ever... Morris W. O'Kelly can be reached at mokellyreport@sbcglobal.net and he welcomes all commentary.
Click for the latest entertainment headlines Click for the latest Obama - Political headlines
Speak Out
Currently, 73 comments have been made on this story.
|
... |
||||||||||
| Back to Top | |||||||||||