Is That Black Enough for You?!?

Is That Black Enough for You?!?_720p(480P)

source: Is That Black Enough for You?!?

A meandering, otherwise promising, yet undisciplined film that uses the 'kitchen sink'/Jackson Pollack strategy in handling its subject matter, brought to us by hopeful filmmaker Elvis MItchell. The main reason folks have always given Elvis MItchell a repeated pass is due to his diversity status, which has propelled his career despite repeated (documented) flake-outs, no-shows, and other flaws. Yet that trope is growing old, and it's time to see actual merit and thought in a work output. Along these lines, Elvis falls short, as a sort of meandering semi-intellectual as others have observed. He's much more suited to delivering rambling, doctrinal 'reviews' as seen through his handy and ever-present lens of race and race identity, versus producing a coherent and compelling thesis that can actually move, inform, and elevate a viewer. Even so, the movie starts out in a promising way, hence the two stars.

I submit a correction: the actor Woody Strode was of African American, Creek and Cherokee decent. As an Afro-Indigenous person myself, I would not say he was "red-facing" in any performance. There should be no problem with him portraying a Native man, as he was native. For comparison: Ben Kingsley is half Jewish, half Indian-- plays a Jewish man in "Schindler's List" and Ghandi in "Ghandi." No criticism was made in him portraying either culture. Perhaps that comparison is helpful in understanding why it is unfair to identify Strode (mixed) with only one of his ethnicities. Especially claiming it was problematic for him to do so when he may have seen it as an achievement and recognition of his heritage. This movie was fine but messy w facts and bias. I love Harry Bellefonte.

You sometimes have to sit back and surrender to what you are watching as it will take you to that magnificent place so many films promise to. I watched this with a reverence that I cannot remember experiencing for a long time when sat in front of a screen. It somehow manages to package and explain the impacts of black film in 2 hours without making it reductive. So many important landmarks are recognised for their contribution to wider popular cinema and preserved for a younger generation. It's a great documentary on the origins and impact of blaxploitation films. If you are a student of cinema this is absolutely one to watch, if you are a student of black history this is absolutely one to treasure. I will watch this again and again over the years. So beautiful and majestic, it really is hard to put into words how great this film is.

I watched this last night on Netflix, and found it often fascinating and informative, but sometimes frustrating, leaving me wanting to know more about Mitchell's views on certain films. Basically, the issue here is that the film maker has decided that he wants to cover a LOT of Black films, which forces him to deal with some of them very quickly. One of the seven previous viewers attributes this to a desire on Mitchell's part to show off how many Black films he has seen, but that was not my impression. Rather, it's clear that he is fascinated with a lot of these movies, and intent on sharing his fascination and knowledge with us. That's hard to do in a movie, though, unlike in a book. Mitchell might have thought about doing what Ken Burns has done with some of his documentaries: focus on the most telling things in the movies themselves, and then provide the rest of the information in an accompanying picture book. Books are good for annotated lists. Movies, not so much. On the hand, because Mitchell sometimes seems like he is trying to be encyclopedic, some of the seven previous reviewers have criticized him for leaving out X or Y Black film or star. A few have a point, but others didn't pay attention. One complained that Mitchell left out James Brown, for example, which is not true. There is a very striking scene of Brown standing shirtless in a doorway, in all the glory of his virile, muscular, and very angry masculinity. It would have been nice to learn if he was offered roles other than those, but that would have taken more time than Mitchell had in this movie. The same is true of some of the other previous criticism. Those viewers just didn't watch closely enough. My take on this is that it was interesting for what it offered, but that it often left me wishing for more than just a tidbit on a given interesting movie. So, I guess, I would have preferred less encyclopedic coverage and more in-depth analysis of fewer movies. On the other hand, I don't regret having seen any of what I saw. Mitchell clearly knows this material. He should definitely treat us to an accompanying illustrated book, where he is not limited by time.

This documentary starts out interesting with lots of historic facts about the earliest black movies that were made, with lots of interesting interviews by big Hollywood names like Samuel L Jackson, Whoopi Goldberg, Harry Bellafonte and Sidney Poitier. The bad: but after an hour this documentary veers of into all sorts of directions, becoming disjointed and long in the tooth. It is as if this director simply had no control over his urge to namedrop as many film classics as possible and then start analysing what was wrong with them. Recommended watch for the first hour, but I fear not many will stay focussed till the very end, because this documentary unfortunately peters out after the first hour.

There's a lot of truths in here, but an awful lot of assumptions made, which is supposed to be the antithesis of this. 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.

As "Is That Black Enough For You?!?" (2022 release; 135 min) opens, the voiceover (from director Elvis Mitchell) observes how his grandma was influenced by the movies she saw, and how it led to the golden era of black film making 1968 to 1978. Talking heads like Lawrence Fishburne, Harry Belafonte and Whoopi Goldberg offer their perspectives, and a wistful Mitchell asks "Why did these pictures stopped getting made?" At this point we are 10 min into the documentary. 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.

From Bill 'Bogangles' Robinson to Louis Gossett Jr. To Marlene Warfield to Denzel Washington (!), there are quite a number of major artists and performances missing. Yaphet Kotto is mentioned once, but his best performances ('Bone,' 'Report to the Commissioner,' 'Blue Collar') are not seen. Pearl Bailey is never mentioned and Redd Foxx is seen for 2 seconds. You would likely never know that Jim Brown and Fred Williamson were, in the 1970's, supreme sex symbol icons as well as icons of masculinity. Cicely Tyson's storied career is distilled to her Oscar nod for 'Sounder' and an appearance in one other film. Spike Lee's films (even his early work) gets glossed over. So, yes, I have some problems with it. However, I must admit that it is an admirable and sophisticated try. Should've been 3 hours long and they should've allowed the film clips to breath a bit more. A nice primer to whet the appetite of the film student. The initiated will find a number of cinematic holes and missed opportunities.