There were several meetings. Eight white men and two white women. Was this a meeting of the Mormon Glee Club? The New White Citizens Council? Perhaps a Klan meeting? No. That meeting was the creative team for the new James Brown movie, "Get On Up."

Welcome to post-racial Hollywood where if you host a fundraiser for Barack Obama, you're freed of the burden of hiring black writers. And where a rich white producer can jokingly declare, "I'm black."

Indeed, all the producers, writers, and the director of the James Brown movie are white. No black people were hired until a few weeks before the cameras started rolling, the actors. In fact, several of the people involved in this whitewash are British. The Brits have a fetish for black projects.

This is the Donald Sterling message: don't bring them to the game. There are over fifty black iconic biopics and black-themed movies in development in Hollywood, including multiple Richard Pryor projects, five Martin Luther King projects, multiple Marvin Gaye projects, and civil rights projects, and only one or two have an African American writer. Our entire history has been given over to white writers.

For more see:

http://www.huffingtonpost..._hp_ref=tw

Meh.. I read that article yesterday. I'm a HUGE James Brown fan, but I don't buy what that article is selling. I haven't seen the movie yet, and if James's role in the civil rights era was diminished or glossed over, then that's not so good, but I can't knock the filmmakers for telling James' story through their eyes. Meaning James was influential to people of all races and cultures. I don't think there anything wrong with different groups having differing perspectives on the same artist. How many Mandela movies are there? How many Kennedy movies? Too many to count for sure. The chance remains for a more socialy accurate portrait to make it to theaters. I intend to enjoy this movie for what it is.

Sad but true, with a lot of these biopics, the only thing black about them are the cast playing the African American star, his band, family etc. Even with the Ray Charles movie, which is one of the better ones, it was all written by and produced by Whites, mostly of the Hebrew persuasion.

.

But lets be realistic, if I had a biopic being made about a black star like Prionce, I would want a Jewish or Italian writer and producer doing who had years of experience, know how, links to the movie making fraternity and more important the gift of the gab and the passion to sell teh concept to rich backers. I know its racist, but few African American directors have those skills (Although its changing with movies like 12 years a slave ), I mean most became known for their level of controversy like Melvin van Peebles, Spike Lee and Tyler Perry. These guys would not make a biopic pleasing to most black eyes. Imagine if Tyler Perry did a Prince biopic, it would be a coonfest and we know it!!!!

.

Plus how many black bazillionaires besides Oprah would have the money to finance it. I think having someone like Spielberg or Coppola directing it rather than some unknown qunatity or someone like Hype Williams who has only produced hip hop music videos.

.

Seriously guys, how many successful Hollywood movies have been exclusively Black produced, directed, starring and financed. Even Berry Gordy only had a little success with Lady sings the blues, but then he gave us the Last Dragon too, which only had a De Barge song as anything worthwhile. And what about the Wiz, titanium level floparoo.

Historically, America has whitewashed the origins of Black people's contributions to the arts and has seen White singers and musicians get the heap of credit for popularizing music that was already laid down by Black performers decades earlier (Elvis Presely for example) and there is a dearth of movies that properly honor Black musicians for adding to the tapestry of Americana. So to find out that no Black people was hired as a writer, producer or consultant to a film about a Black icon like James Brown it does make people cringe. The movie itself was decent. At times, the pacing of the movie makes me feel like the director referenced Ray too many times-especially the flashbacks of Brown's childhood then back to adulthood passages. The best parts of the movie for me was the disagreements James Brown had with his side musicians regarding musical parts sometimes not making sense "lack of melodic or harmonic content in polyrhythmic tunes".

Save a very few exceptions (Gandhi comes to mind), all the biopics I've seen were boring to death, totally predictable even without knowing the life of the people in question. Somehow while Hollywood makes the best fiction movies in the world they're unable to turn reality into interesting fiction. I've often wondered about that, how come biopics are so systematically boring and predictable? I've come up with the conclusion that real life, even the life of the most awesome people with the most awesome destinies, is always more boring and predictable than the fictional ideas writers come up with. That and the notion that a biopic should be filmed as a "classic" film with the director putting aside their creativity for the sake of 'boring) realism.

So let's face it folks: reality is boring and predictable

V10LETBLUES said:

The reason biopics are predictable and silly, is that there are usually intrests involved that want to spin and whitewash reality. Family, record companies, movie studios, fans, etc etc. Delivering a PG, family friendy, heroic portrayal is usually what you end up getting even if it's about Hitler. Okay probably not Hitler.

Actually Downfall describes him as a pretty friendly guy

But it's a hell of a great movie and not really a biopic since it only focuses on his last days.

V10LETBLUES said:

The reason biopics are predictable and silly, is that there are usually intrests involved that want to spin and whitewash reality. Family, record companies, movie studios, fans, etc etc. Delivering a PG, family friendy, heroic portrayal is usually what you end up getting even if it's about Hitler. Okay probably not Hitler.

I agree. That's why I'm not too excited about the Aaliyah biopic. Outside of the whole bs hype about whose playing her, I don't see it being an more informative about her life than her Vh1's "Behind the Music".

You mentioned "interested parties" whitewashing reality. Aaliyah has maintained the image of being this really sweet, angelic person. And, I'm not saying that isn't the case. My best friend's younger brother got the chance to meet her when she spoke to him at an expo she was attending, but he was too shy to respond. They are not going to put something in her biopic that will questioned that image. So, you will get a movie that will be very "Hallmark" in its telling of her life. Don't expect to see anything about her relationship with Jay Z. The most that they will say about R Kelly is that he played a major role in launching her career. If they do include the infamous marriage, it will be glossed over. And the only reason that Damon Dash will be brought up is because he was her boyfriend at her time of death.

Then again, I could be wrong, but....

As for Prince getting a biopic, not likely. I mean, who is Prince really? Everyone in his world, professional and otherwise, are all bound by contracts not to discuss him.

[Edited 8/5/14 6:23am]

[Edited 8/5/14 6:25am]

Nobody in the film scene looks like Prince, or has the same bone structure, or is short as he is.

SuperSoulFighter said:

V10LETBLUES said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

I could go along with what the article was saying until the "JB belongs to us, the black masses". No! Music belongs to the whole world! It is a bit strange that this film about a black superstar was made by white people, but I wouldn't like it any better if only blacks could write about blacks, only Jews about Jews etc. Some of the best western films were made by Sergio Leone, an Italian.

Exactly. For that alone, the article should have been filed in the trash folder.

Appreciate that. We could've used you when pop radio banned him after "Say It Loud" came out. His next pop hit came nearly 20 years later...

hopefularranger said:

V10LETBLUES said:

SuperSoulFighter said: Exactly. For that alone, the article should have been filed in the trash folder.

Appreciate that. We could've used you when pop radio banned him after "Say It Loud" came out. His next pop hit came nearly 20 years later...

*

There's a better review of the film by C. Liegh McInnis, the author of The Lyrics of Prince, and his review actually focuses on the film. It is published at B.K.Nation.org. But, since I can't link it, y'all can simply google: C. Liegh McInnis James Brown #GetOnUp: There's more to Being Brown and Black than Meets the Eye. If you like McInnis' review at B. K. Nation.org, you might want to add a comment and share it with others because Howard's article has a lot of people tweeting that they will not be seeing a film where all white writers are telling a story about a black man. And, while I agree that it's a shame that the producers didn't hire at least one black writer, I agree with McInnis that the film is still a good--not great--film that handles well the complexity of James Brown and the complexity of racism.

It's a long tradition in Hollywood. Make films about black people that are actually "white people sure are swell" movies.

Mississippi Burning is about the heroic white lawyers, Cry Freedom is about the heroic white reporter that covered the Steven Biko story, we should probably be grateful this movie is not about the heroic owner of King Records or the heroic white kids that danced to "I Feel Good" even though their parents, teachers and the evil town sherriff were all awful racists.

for what it's worth,I saw 'Get On Up' last weekend and I thought it was great I might even go see it again this weekend.

funksterr said:

Meh.. I read that article yesterday. I'm a HUGE James Brown fan, but I don't buy what that article is selling. I haven't seen the movie yet, and if James's role in the civil rights era was diminished or glossed over, then that's not so good, but I can't knock the filmmakers for telling James' story through their eyes. Meaning James was influential to people of all races and cultures. I don't think there anything wrong with different groups having differing perspectives on the same artist. How many Mandela movies are there? How many Kennedy movies? Too many to count for sure. The chance remains for a more socialy accurate portrait to make it to theaters. I intend to enjoy this movie for what it is.

Do you think an all-black team of directors, writers and producers would be given the green light to do a movie about the Holocaust and no Jews would be hired? I'm not starting a fight with you, I just want you to think about that for a bit.

Adorecream said:

Sad but true, with a lot of these biopics, the only thing black about them are the cast playing the African American star, his band, family etc. Even with the Ray Charles movie, which is one of the better ones, it was all written by and produced by Whites, mostly of the Hebrew persuasion.

.

But lets be realistic, if I had a biopic being made about a black star like Prionce, I would want a Jewish or Italian writer and producer doing who had years of experience, know how, links to the movie making fraternity and more important the gift of the gab and the passion to sell teh concept to rich backers. I know its racist, but few African American directors have those skills (Although its changing with movies like 12 years a slave ), I mean most became known for their level of controversy like Melvin van Peebles, Spike Lee and Tyler Perry. These guys would not make a biopic pleasing to most black eyes. Imagine if Tyler Perry did a Prince biopic, it would be a coonfest and we know it!!!!

.

Plus how many black bazillionaires besides Oprah would have the money to finance it. I think having someone like Spielberg or Coppola directing it rather than some unknown qunatity or someone like Hype Williams who has only produced hip hop music videos.

.

Seriously guys, how many successful Hollywood movies have been exclusively Black produced, directed, starring and financed. Even Berry Gordy only had a little success with Lady sings the blues, but then he gave us the Last Dragon too, which only had a De Barge song as anything worthwhile. And what about the Wiz, titanium level floparoo.

I think it's unfair to say that the black directors don't have the chops and haven't been "as successful". If someone doesn't let you in the door (or window!), how do you even get a seat at the table?

SuperSoulFighter said:

I could go along with what the article was saying until the "JB belongs to us, the black masses". No! Music belongs to the whole world! It is a bit strange that this film about a black superstar was made by white people, but I wouldn't like it any better if only blacks could write about blacks, only Jews about Jews etc. Some of the best western films were made by Sergio Leone, an Italian.

It originated in the black community. Can you imagine if people from Kentucky all of a sudden started to try to convince the masses that Paella (origin: Spain) was theirs just as much as the Spaniards?

This thread might be better off in politics and religion but frankly, I get really, really tired of people always putting the onus on black people to just allow our cultural artifcats to be "universally consumed" without our input, ownership or concerns taken into consideration. Meanwhile, there are many, many all-white institutions that will remain that way as a matter of culture and heritage.

[Edited 8/9/14 12:55pm]

SeventeenDayze said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

OF COURSE James Brown/blues/soul/jazz/etc. originated in the black community of the US. I never denied that and I have nothing but love & respect for JB, Muddy Waters, Miles, you name 'em... But that doesn't mean black Americans are the only ones who can like/love/discuss/write about them. Just after James Brown died, I was in Kenya and even the newspapers there were writing about him. Music belongs to the world, like any other art form. Picasso was influenced by African art. That doesn't mean whites are "stealing" from blacks. It's inspiration.

It's only "inspiration" when it's the black Americans' cultural artifacts that are in question. I think this falls in line with the colonial mentality. Take something that wasn't yours and make the originators out to be the "bad guy" for wanting to retain a sense of identity and ownership of something. What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine....that's what it boils down to.

bashraka said:

There were several meetings. Eight white men and two white women. Was this a meeting of the Mormon Glee Club? The New White Citizens Council? Perhaps a Klan meeting? No. That meeting was the creative team for the new James Brown movie, "Get On Up."

Welcome to post-racial Hollywood where if you host a fundraiser for Barack Obama, you're freed of the burden of hiring black writers. And where a rich white producer can jokingly declare, "I'm black."

Indeed, all the producers, writers, and the director of the James Brown movie are white. No black people were hired until a few weeks before the cameras started rolling, the actors. In fact, several of the people involved in this whitewash are British. The Brits have a fetish for black projects.

This is the Donald Sterling message: don't bring them to the game. There are over fifty black iconic biopics and black-themed movies in development in Hollywood, including multiple Richard Pryor projects, five Martin Luther King projects, multiple Marvin Gaye projects, and civil rights projects, and only one or two have an African American writer. Our entire history has been given over to white writers.

For more see:

http://www.huffingtonpost..._hp_ref=tw

well thought out and articulate but ,no matter how you dress up racism its still racism and guess what,your blog is quite racist. Im a black man and I am offended.i am not sure what era you grew up in so forgive me,but I grew up in the 80s/90s. We accepted everyone.if I white person wanted to make a movie about someone black it was not an issue.lets take a lokk at what fansite we are on.Prince.org who became a worldwide superstar because a white man backed his 1st movie ,got it made for him and he became a legend.the most unimportant thing in my staement was that it was a white man that backed him because race doesnt matter.im sure james brown meant alot to white folks as well as hispanics and asians .not only black. do you think Prince put brown mark in his band because he needed more color?our civil rights icons went through what they did so we can all live in harmony.so a black man can be the dean of harvard.so a white kid can go to howard and not feel like an outsider.as far as the artistic vision of the group that got get on up made goes..thats a matter of our personal opinion.but to bash them because they are white and got this movie made is down right racist.and thats what you did.and the people that agreed with you.it really is people like you who keep us divided.us as in the human race.I am sure there are more than a few grammar errors in this ,but to hell with that you should take a step back and look at things from all views. whats more importnt is that you miss out on the fact that HELLO we have a james brown movie.a whole new generation of americans(and people from around the world)will now be exposed to the greatness that you (so accurately I might add) described .yes he is an icon.a civil rights leader.one of the most important men(not just black) of the 20th century.and thanks to those white brothers and sisters of ours we now have him on the big screen.you just overlooked the positive

hopefularranger said:

V10LETBLUES said:

SuperSoulFighter said: Exactly. For that alone, the article should have been filed in the trash folder.

Appreciate that. We could've used you when pop radio banned him after "Say It Loud" came out. His next pop hit came nearly 20 years later...

pop radio banned him yet it was still a huge top 10 pop hit.hmmmmm.I wonder if any white people had anything to do with that.

khemseraph said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

I take my username from a Lenny Kravitz song, a black artist who was inspired by The Beatles, The Stones, LedZep and Dylan as much as JB, Sly, Hendrix, Marvin and Bob Marley. Is that colonialism too?

If you'd like to talk about this further, please make a thread in politics and religion. But, it doesn't seem that you're really interested in learning WHY I have that perspective, so it's a moot point. And to answer your question, the truth hurts, don't it?

Say it loud, I'm "post-racial" and proud, just isn't as catchy, is it?