Separate but equal?

The debate about African American portrayals in television and film has continued since
the beginnings of those respective industries in the early to middle 20th century. African
Americans complain to "Hollywood" that there are not enough characters in television
and films that reflect a diverse society. "Hollywood" responds by throwing a small bone
and casting a few actors of color in films to be bucks, coons and nannies until the furor
dies down, only to return to business as usual. NAACP threatens boycotts unless
"Hollywood" hires more minority "behind the camera" talent. Hollywood responds by
hiring a few writers of color to pad the writing staffs of the few minority-theme shows.
Those shows, predictably, fair poorly in the Nielsen ratings because Nielsen families
(farmers in Idaho) will not watch them. Why should they? They have no more of an
interest in watching other cultures in their homes than we would were we in their
position. Many Nielsen families have no minority friends or neighbors. Many go through
the better parts of their lives without interacting with minorities. Minorities, their
cultures, experiences and concerns, are foreign to them and it would be just fine to them
if that situation were to remain status quo. Minority-theme shows get cancelled and the
writers are no better off than they were before because they are deemed by "Hollywood"
to be incapable of working on any other than minority-theme shows. Millions of outraged
African Americans organize writing campaigns to save the endangered show. On
occasion, a brief reprieve is granted as the network orders additional episodes, with the
knowledge that these episodes are to be the last that will be seen, despite the protests of
perhaps 2% of the 12% minority population who bother to write. We continue to wonder
why networks ignore the African American population. We learn that the Nielsen rating
numbers bear a direct relationship to potential ad rates. We learn that networks are unable
earn their desired profits from minority-theme shows because advertisers are unwilling to
pay premium ad rates during minority-them shows because Nielsen numbers are typically
lower than those of their non-minority theme counterparts. Moreover, advertisers
traditionally devalue the potential revenue from African American consumers. Network
executives must answer to their shareholders, not African American protesters, and to
engage in a pattern of business decisions that they know will not maximize their profits
will cost them in corporate revenue potential, in share value, and ultimately, in their own
jobs. With this knowledge, we should not be surprised to find very few African
Americans and other minorities on screens, small and large. Perhaps if we become major
stockholders in the networks, we will have a voice. Not that easy, since each network is a
subsidiary of a much larger blue-chip conglomerate which could resist the sale of the
block of shares that would be necessary to influence the decision-making process of the
board, assuming that minority-controlled entities or individuals could raise the sufficient
capital for such a buy. What about cable television? Cable has become a viable
competitor to network television and has managed to force network television to push
their collective programming envelope in order to stem the flow of viewers in the
direction of cable. Black Entertainment television has been the only African American-
controlled network for 20 years until its sale to Viacom this year. This begs the question;
if the African American community is concerned about minority images in media and
cannot make any headway with majority-controlled network television, why not support
the African American-owned network that can and will portray African Americans?
Second question: if there is only one African American-controlled television network and
that network is being supported by its community, why was it sold out of minority
ownership? The answer to the first question relates to BET's programming content. Many
older African Americans objected to the preponderance of youth-oriented programming
on BET. BET features numerous music video and other hip-hop-related shows that are
designed to capture the 18-30 demographic. This programming is also relatively
inexpensive and easy to acquire. The programming that would appeal to a larger African
American audience, i.e. feature films and original programming is expensive to develop
and to produce. BET was unable to increase advertising revenue because, as discussed
earlier, advertisers undervalue the African American consumer dollar. Several years ago,
during a lawsuit, an internal sales document from an ad firm was made public and it shed
light on the phenomenon of advertising to the African American community. The sales
staff was admonished to not place ads with African American radio stations. "We want
prospects, not convicts" Given that attitude, it is not inconceivable that a conspiracy
exists among advertisers to pay lower rates for advertising to African Americans. BET
was placed in a no-win situation. BET was constantly under attack in the A.A.
community who challenged them to make their programming more substantial for an
adult audience, but was unable to enhance the quality of its programming because it
could not increase ad revenue from advertisers who were unwilling to pay premium rates
to advertise to BET's core audience, the 18-30 year old demographic. Advertisers want
"prospects, not convicts". It may not be fair to paint all advertisers with this wide brush,
but their business decisions are very similar across the board. Besides, how fair is it to
categorize all 19-30 year old African Americans as "convicts"? And yet, this has been
done by at least one advertiser, and probably more.

There are limited frequencies available for television broadcast. The major networks hold
a clear monopoly over the television dial. The only alternatives are the syndicated
independent networks that must sell their programming to independent stations around
the country. The Fox network started out as a part time network and has grown into the
largest independent network in television. The UPN and WB networks, that cater to
multicultural audiences, are less established syndicated networks that appear to be
growing in influence despite a deeply discounted advertising rate card. Both of these
networks are backed by major studios who are able to provide the necessary financial
support to sustain their losses as these networks find their nationwide markets.

There are a number of African American entrepreneur groups who are endeavoring to
build satellite networks that will provide a wide range of African American programming
to a worldwide audience on a pay per view subscription basis. Perhaps an answer will
eventually be found there. Only time and the raising of billions of dollars in capital will
tell.

The film industry was a promising outlet for African American themes in the early
1990's. Over the course of five years, 17 African American produced and/or directed
films were released to theaters worldwide before the movement was stopped in its tracks
by 1995. What happened to this renaissance in Black independent film? Black
independent filmmakers did not stop making films and yet, the films stopped being
released into theaters. Many independent films by Black filmmakers have found
distribution in the direct to video market. Many of these direct to video films were no
more than glorified home movies, but some seemed to contain story and technical quality
that rivaled studio-produced films that were distributed in 2000 screens, and yet, these
films were not offered distribution through studio channels. If story and technical quality
were not at issue, and if a studio can acquire and distribute one of these low-budget films
and a much lower risk level and financial exposure than the films that they develop,
produce and distribute, why are these films not reaching the theaters? The explanation
given by the studios relate to the marketing of African American films. Firstly, studio
execs will often assert that they do not know how to market African American films that
do not feature recognizable African American stars. This argument is specious to me
since "Hollywood" has hired the "cream of the crop" of Madison Ave's. marketing
wizards, who are capable of successfully marketing sand to Arabs and ice to Eskimos.
Surely, they can market African American films to a huge African American market and
to the limited crossover market that would be needed to make the films financial viable.
Next excuse, African American films do not sell well in European and Asian markets
unless the cast includes someone named Eddie, Denzel or Samuel L. Censorship in the
Moslem nations of the middle east would make in difficult for these films to translate
effectively and African continent distribution channels are not controlled by American
studios. African American films are traditionally produced on lower production budgets.
The average studio-produced film carries a budget price tag of $25-30 million. The
average studio-produced African-American content film carries a budget price tag of
approximately $8-10 million. Studio accounting practices dictate that a film, in order to
break even, must gross three times its production budget. Studio overhead, high salaries
of above the line and principal cast, P&A expenses contribute to a "floating break even"
point with most studio films. Ask Art Buchwald ("Coming to America" litigation) and
he'll show you that it is possible to cook the books to show that no film ever turns a
profit. Studios usually depend upon domestic box office proceeds to place their films in
at least a break-even position, foreign box office proceeds and home video to pad the
profit margin. Studio executives are reluctant to "greenlight" film that may only break
even, when their resources can be used to produce films that produce large profits, even
with the increased up front investment required for these films. It's a shareholder thing.
The reasoning is simple. You're a studio executive. Why should you do a $10 million film
that may appeal to only 12%-20% of the U.S. audience, that may gross $30-40 million
domestic theatrical, in its best case scenario, with nothing from overseas and perhaps $5
million in home video, for a net profit of around $15 million? You can spend $30 million
for a film with major stars who will appeal to 60%-70% of the market, gross $100 million
domestic, $30 million overseas and an additional $10 million in home video, for a net
profit of $40 million. When you consider the numbers, it becomes clear that will never
see an abundance of films that target African American audiences. Corporate directors
would much rather produce a year-end earnings summary for the shareholders that
displays a bottom line figure indicating profits from ten films of $40 million net apiece,
rather than five films at $40 net profit and five at $10 million net profit.

How will it be possible for African Americans and other minority filmmakers to tell our
stories to the community without the benefit of the established studio distribution and
exhibition channels? We learn from our history. In the early 20th century, at the inception
of the film industry, the same situation existed. From the time that the first studios were
created by German Jewish immigrants, people of color and their stories were excluded
from film. The limited number of African Americans who appeared in white films were
portrayed as nannies, bucks and coons. They were stereotypical and cartoon-like
caricatures of human beings designed to provide comic relief at the expense of an entire
race of people. In 1915, Birth of a Nation (AKA "The Clansman") was produced by D.W.
Griffith, a bigot of extreme proportion, and the film received strong critical acclaim and
the endorsement of the white media and President Woodrow Wilson. Unfortunately, the
film featured bigoted portrayals of African Americans and glorified lynching and other
violence against the African American community, which inspired real life acts of
violence by whites around the nation against African Americans. The positive
consequence of this film was the advent of the African American independent filmmaker.
Oscar Micheaux, Noble and George Johnson began to create films that were designed to
begin to undo the damage that was done to the image of African Americans by "Birth of a
Nation". Financed by influential African Americans and by some liberal whites, these
filmmakers created films that portrayed African Americans in a more realistic and
balanced, and even heroic light. For the first time, African Americans were able to view
themselves on screen as victors rather than victims. These "race films", as the white press
called them, garnered barely a ripple in the white community and many African
Americans criticized the filmmakers for portraying African Americans in an unrealistic
light. For the most part, these films were well supported by African American audiences
despite the fact that technical quality was often substandard and acting was often
amateurish. Race films were exhibited in segregated theaters, school auditoriums and
churches. The films did not earn major profits, but allowed the filmmakers to support
themselves while creating more films. These films also provide a livelihood for many
African American actors, while making many of them stars within the community. Paul
Robeson's first appearance as a film actor was in an Oscar Micheaux film entitled "Body
and Soul". This was a separate but unequal film industry by African American
filmmakers for African American audiences and it thrived until the studios introduced
"talking" films and introduced more African American actors. Eventually theaters
desegregated, African American audiences flocked into these integrated theaters and this
sounded the death knell for "race" films.

The same debate has been raised since this early time period, as if we refuse to learn from
our history that white financed and run studios will never consistently portray African
Americans in a light that is designed to suit African American audiences.

Now that we have reached another millennium, we have access to the technology and the
capital that will allow African American filmmakers to produce films of a quality that is
comparable to films produced by the studio system. Digital production and exhibition
technology is the future of filmmaking. African American filmmakers are beginning to
produce and distribute their own films. Several African American distribution entities
have begun to place films in theaters around the country. Eventually we will be released
from our dependence on studio production and distribution entities to tell our stories for
us. Once we begin the process of reclaiming our portion of the $2-3 billion that African
American audiences spend every year, to view studio films, many of which have little
relevance to their own lives, we will be able to build a separate industry that will cater to
a multi-cultural audience. Our films may not feature the major stars and the films may not
provide the thrill of expensive special effects, but the films will be more story and
character-driven with well conceived scripts and gifted actors from stage and television.
There is no reason why a community that controls financial resources that exceed the
GNP's of every developing nation except China cannot create and support a separate film
industry. We already have an abundance of talented writers, producers and technical
personnel. The accounting expertise is available within our own community. We are only
lacking the facilities. If we can reprogram our audience to view films, not at the plush
multiplex, but at the neighborhood theater, school and church auditorium, we can provide
as many venues as needed to exhibit films in every city around the country. If we can
begin to refurbish some of these old theater palaces that have lay dormant since the 1968
riots, or if we can begin to develop new seat theaters that would be become houses to
exhibit these independent films by filmmakers from within the community, we will be
well along the road toward being a separate but equal film industry. The African
American community makes noise about their representation in "Hollywood" films,
begging and pleading for more serious and challenging fare, and yet will eagerly pay
$117 million to support "Big Momma's House". What do you want to do, African
Americans? It's time to either put up or shut up!

Clifford E. Pulliam,
Executive Director
The Micheaux Foundation