Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

It seems that there are quite a few African-Americans who don’t understand what the big deal is with playwright/screenwriter/director Tyler Perry.

Yesterday, I lamented the fact that Perry’s new film Madea’s Family Reunion debuted at #1 with a $30 million haul despite Perry’s decision to create a character (played by Blair Underwood) based on the old stereotype of the partner-abusing black man. Apparently, that’s not the only stereotype to be found in Perry’s work.

A few days ago, Jeffrey Wells of the popular film website Hollywood-Elsewhere.com received an e-mail from an African-American California resident outraged by Perry’s success. The writer asserted that

There are literally millions of African-Americans who as just as put off and outright offended by Tyler Perry as there are African-Americans who are fans of his…The black audience of America is by no means a monolith, despite what the industry thinks. Perry is selling nothing but warmed over Stepin Fetchit to [a] segment of my people that I don’t find very intelligent or very bright…I’m pissed. I’m pissed that both of his movies were made, and I’m equally pissed that there was an audience for them. African-Americans are going to be split on this. More educated, more affluent African-Americans — like me, my friends and my family — are going to stay away in droves, for the most part. The more working-class, less educated segments of the African-American community will be a different story. As much as I despise Tyler Perry, he is not the problem here. He’s just a symptom…It’s Hollywood that I have a real problem with. I hate to say it, but I see racism in the decision to promote this fool. Hollywood is supposed to be a business with its only eye on the bottom line, yet it willfully and consistently ignores a segment of the audience. Why? It’s not like there’s no money to be made. Yet is it only the material that shows the worst of African-American culture that gets served first. What about the rest of us? We get plenty of comedies (on TV and in the Movies) with African-American casts. We still get John Singleton’s (to me, equally offensive) gangsta/pimp movies from time to time. But the serious dramas, with African-American casts and directors, like Antwone Fisher, come few and far between. Why? Denzel [Washington], an established movie star with two Academy Awards in his pocket and bankability on his side, had to wait ten years to make Antwone Fisher. This guy Perry comes along and they’re throwing money at [him]. If that’s not racism…"

The writer is clearly suggesting that Perry’s work is geared to a "ghetto" audience, as opposed to the middle-class audience Washington targeted with Fisher. I’m not that familiar with Perry’s work, so I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this claim; however, if the writer’s assertion is correct, then there are significant cultural issues that need to be addressed.

The writer is absolutely correct when he asserts that most Hollywood product featuring blacks is geared to "ghetto" tastes (White Chicks, Soul Plane, Cradle 2 the Grave, Four Brothers, etc.) Movies geared to middle-class black tastes (Fisher, Ali, Ray, Men of Honor, etc.) are few and far between, and when they do appear, they tend not to perform as well as the more lowbrow black-themed material.

If it’s true that Perry’s highly successful plays and films are also geared to lowbrow/"ghetto" tastes (again, I cannot speak to that from first-hand experience), then his success will naturally encourage young black playwrights and screenwriters to "dumb down" their content in order to achieve similar prosperity. Why try to imitate August Wilson, when Wilson never had even one of his award-winning plays turned into a movie?

This is the source of the California writer’s frustration: in Perry, he sees a man who has embraced the low, the crass, the vulgar and the degrading to make money. Perry, in his view, gets away with it because a) his content is Christian-themed and b) he has a compelling life story (although, let’s face it, Perry’s ascension from homeless to hotshot is not unique, as Sidney Poitier and Hilary Swank were both homeless at one point).

One can dispute the writer’s assertion that Perry’s Hollywood success is a testament to racism. However, it’s hard to dispute the fact that there is a dearth of intelligent product geared to black audiences. While Malcolm X and Ali did underperform at the box office relative to expectations, the success of Ray should have, at least in theory, led Hollywood to consider producing similar biopics. For example, a well-made movie about Nat King Cole’s turbulent life would enthrall quality-thirsty audiences–but what are the odds of such a film being produced today, even after Ray’s success? (Of course, it must be noted that Ray, though released by Universal, was privately financed, as numerous studio execs felt a Ray Charles biopic would tank.)

If Perry’s work does indeed represent the triumph of trash over class, then one has to wonder: will someone manage to beat him at his own game, producing material that (while supposedly religiously rooted) is even more lowbrow and even more geared to "ghetto" tastes? And if that is the case, do blacks who desire class simply throw up their hands and write off the modern entertainment industry?