Photo: Mazur/Getty
Sunday evening on 60 Minutes there was a segment about Tyler Perry by Byron Pitts. What ensued over the next 24-48hrs was quite interesting to say the least. I engaged in a thread on a friend's facebook page about said piece. Here are some excerpts of my responses.
"....TP makes a point when he says that there is an audience he speaks to and gives them a msg in a way that they can understand. "art" is subjective. for instance, everyone doesn't like bjork but i think she's amazing... he talks about drug abuse, spousal abuse, relationships, family, etc. all of the characters are not buffoons. there is room enough for everyone. if he wasn't actually actively trying to bring a msg to the table i would agree totally but the fact is that he is."
"he attacks, as aforementioned, abuse of all kinds to show his audience they can win. a lot of the ppl who patronize his works do feel like they can see themselves in them. "why did i get married?" was a departure from madea. even though one of the characters was one of those over the top kinds she still had a bit of an arc.
speaking of him directing a movie that you couldn't tell was directed by a black director: don't you think spike lee "suffered" from that stigma until oh i don't know 2002 when he released "25th hour"? then came "inside man" in 2006. he had his 1st major break out in 1980 with "she's gotta have it". so that's over 20 yrs of knowing that you're watching a movie about "black" issues by a black director. the challenge is to dig deeper. there is a reason behind every artists "theme" in their chosen medium. tyler's is that he suffered major abuse and watched his mother go through it, as well. he has an audience, albeit which does not include many of us on this thread, that support him wholeheartedly. he doesn't promote prostitution, nor any type of demoralization of women, so likening him to say, Gucci Mane, is a bit extreme to me.
re people who support gucci mane and the like: there is supply and demand. if ppl keep buying it, it keeps getting pumped out. "real" artist sometimes don't like to liken themselves to attracting financial gain b/c they think that success somehow makes them less "real". THAT is the problem. gucci mane won't be around forever b/c his content is lacking. but "indie" artists have to put themselves on, too."
speaking of him directing a movie that you couldn't tell was directed by a black director: don't you think spike lee "suffered" from that stigma until oh i don't know 2002 when he released "25th hour"? then came "inside man" in 2006. he had his 1st major break out in 1980 with "she's gotta have it". so that's over 20 yrs of knowing that you're watching a movie about "black" issues by a black director. the challenge is to dig deeper. there is a reason behind every artists "theme" in their chosen medium. tyler's is that he suffered major abuse and watched his mother go through it, as well. he has an audience, albeit which does not include many of us on this thread, that support him wholeheartedly. he doesn't promote prostitution, nor any type of demoralization of women, so likening him to say, Gucci Mane, is a bit extreme to me.
re people who support gucci mane and the like: there is supply and demand. if ppl keep buying it, it keeps getting pumped out. "real" artist sometimes don't like to liken themselves to attracting financial gain b/c they think that success somehow makes them less "real". THAT is the problem. gucci mane won't be around forever b/c his content is lacking. but "indie" artists have to put themselves on, too."
"tyler made his movies using his own money precisely b/c he didn't want anyone to be able to dictate how his ish was made. he used the $$ from all of his plays to fund them and kept putting money back into himself to further himself. that's how he built his studio in the a. what is incredibly strange and hi-larious to me is that as a filmmaker myself, i am actually defending someone who i don't align myself with artistically. his hustle, though, 100%. lionsgate is for distribution and only recently as investors. please believe that this man is doing things his own way. he had another director do his 1st movie and that didn't work out so well because he wanted it his way and this i know 1st hand. partnering w/lionsgate puts more $$ in his pocket while allowing him to write his own ticket. he only got to that point b/c he showed a following on his own. he put himself on. just as spike lee did. but i think it's a bit early to say that someone can't grow. after spike's 1st 6 films would someone say they could see him directing the likes of edward norton in a film as his lead? probably not. but he did."
"Bottom line is his pieces effect people. I might not be you but look at the box office numbers." -Shak
100.

No comments:
Post a Comment