“But this moment clarified something for me: if I really want to have deeper conversations about how power works and how it fails, I needed somewhere where my words and not someone else's version of them could speak for themselves. So now here we are.” 👏🏾👏🏾
I was disappointed in Matt Belloni’s off-the-cuff remark and felt it continued the unfortunate framing of your voice and perspective in this conversation about Sinners and conventional wisdom. I'm glad you took him to task for it.
I'd just been in another meeting that same day where discriminatory language was being used cavalierly by well-meaning people and had been lamenting about how difficult it is to get people to be more thoughtful with their words.
“That framing also reflects something deeper and more insidious: A fragile view of power that treats scrutiny as aggression.”
What I love most about this essay is how clearly and succinctly it gets to the heart of the matter. You’ve said everything I’ve ever wanted to say about my observations of Hollywood and the way it operates—but you said it in a less inflammatory manner and backed by data. This is a seminal text that I will be returning to again and again. Thank you for your testimony, Brother. 🙏🏾🙌🏾✊🏾
Yes!! “If pointing out measurable racial disparities - like the well documented underinvestment in Black-led films - is met with "you're calling me a racist," then we never get to ask how systems work. We never get to diagnose why they fail, and we never get the chance to fix them.” Thank you, Franklin!
Excellent post but c’mon, comparing Coogler’s initial run to Spielberg is beyond meaningless. Adjust for inflation and the grosses aren’t comparable. Spielberg has 2 titles in the top ten, 4 titles in the top 22, Coogler has Black Panther, a Marvel title at 32. Different times, different business, different movie culture. And not just the grosses, but most Americans could name the director of ET (post Jaws, post Close Encounters, post Raiders); most Americans couldn’t have told you who directed Black Panther 2 at the time of its release. Most critically acclaimed through first five films? Wha? Coppola? Lynch? At a certain point actual film history (and inflation) needs to be referenced more than like, Metacritic.
I read it. Box office grosses “through a director’s first five movies” may be good context to push back against the silly fuss around Sinner’s budget (fuss which to my mind might not have happened if not for two prior WB flops and a whipping up of a De Luca/Abdy on the chopping block media narrative); 90 million is obviously no big deal for a movie with a director with a studio track record and a movie star. I’m saying this ranking of directors by grosses “of the first five films since Spielberg” lacks real context in the franchise era, when in Coogler’s case the vast majority of the 1.5 billion dollars his movies have grossed is taken up by two Marvel movies. The same point would apply to Nolan’s first five being dominated by two Batman movies. Maybe it’s a side point I’m making/belaboring, a nitpick, but I’m not pointing out anything complicated or controversial here. Movies are about more than data. Because surely the idea isn’t that this metric is meant to suggest Coogler is the biggest deal since Spielberg.
Well the qualifier “since” Spielberg is the key point, I can’t argue that. I suppose I’m reading into the idea that there’s an historical comparison being made. It takes nothing away from Coogler and his accomplishment with Sinners to acknowledge that the discussion of crediting directors with the box office success of franchise pictures makes for a less clear cut discussion than in Spielberg’s era, since it would mean we’d have to also talk about the success of the Russo brothers.
Oof, we all feel exhausted for you! For illegitimate power, which is all racial capitalism is, scrutiny like yours, which is evidence-based, is the worst kind of "aggression." Because that system is not interested in critique or a sober "market" analysis--it just says it is. Hollywood is a cultural and political engine of meaning-making. It resists allowing voices it considers marginal/inferior to speak from the center, to be the representative face of the US culture abroad. The irony of course is, it already is; the most popular and profitable American pop culture has always been Black American culture.
“But this moment clarified something for me: if I really want to have deeper conversations about how power works and how it fails, I needed somewhere where my words and not someone else's version of them could speak for themselves. So now here we are.” 👏🏾👏🏾
I was disappointed in Matt Belloni’s off-the-cuff remark and felt it continued the unfortunate framing of your voice and perspective in this conversation about Sinners and conventional wisdom. I'm glad you took him to task for it.
I'd just been in another meeting that same day where discriminatory language was being used cavalierly by well-meaning people and had been lamenting about how difficult it is to get people to be more thoughtful with their words.
Thanks for this.
“That framing also reflects something deeper and more insidious: A fragile view of power that treats scrutiny as aggression.”
What I love most about this essay is how clearly and succinctly it gets to the heart of the matter. You’ve said everything I’ve ever wanted to say about my observations of Hollywood and the way it operates—but you said it in a less inflammatory manner and backed by data. This is a seminal text that I will be returning to again and again. Thank you for your testimony, Brother. 🙏🏾🙌🏾✊🏾
Yes!! “If pointing out measurable racial disparities - like the well documented underinvestment in Black-led films - is met with "you're calling me a racist," then we never get to ask how systems work. We never get to diagnose why they fail, and we never get the chance to fix them.” Thank you, Franklin!
Not gonna lie. I was so hoping for a follow up after the success ’Sinners’ found at the box office.
I really wanted to see what folks had to say, especially after that Variety headline & article.
Anyway, glad you responded and excited to read what’s coming next.
Excellent post but c’mon, comparing Coogler’s initial run to Spielberg is beyond meaningless. Adjust for inflation and the grosses aren’t comparable. Spielberg has 2 titles in the top ten, 4 titles in the top 22, Coogler has Black Panther, a Marvel title at 32. Different times, different business, different movie culture. And not just the grosses, but most Americans could name the director of ET (post Jaws, post Close Encounters, post Raiders); most Americans couldn’t have told you who directed Black Panther 2 at the time of its release. Most critically acclaimed through first five films? Wha? Coppola? Lynch? At a certain point actual film history (and inflation) needs to be referenced more than like, Metacritic.
There’s a link in the article that makes the case statistically: https://open.substack.com/pub/tombrueggemann/p/through-1st-five-features-ryan-cooglers?r=1j258&utm_medium=ios
If you would like to make a counterargument based on data and evidence, by all means, please do.
I read it. Box office grosses “through a director’s first five movies” may be good context to push back against the silly fuss around Sinner’s budget (fuss which to my mind might not have happened if not for two prior WB flops and a whipping up of a De Luca/Abdy on the chopping block media narrative); 90 million is obviously no big deal for a movie with a director with a studio track record and a movie star. I’m saying this ranking of directors by grosses “of the first five films since Spielberg” lacks real context in the franchise era, when in Coogler’s case the vast majority of the 1.5 billion dollars his movies have grossed is taken up by two Marvel movies. The same point would apply to Nolan’s first five being dominated by two Batman movies. Maybe it’s a side point I’m making/belaboring, a nitpick, but I’m not pointing out anything complicated or controversial here. Movies are about more than data. Because surely the idea isn’t that this metric is meant to suggest Coogler is the biggest deal since Spielberg.
Well the qualifier “since” Spielberg is the key point, I can’t argue that. I suppose I’m reading into the idea that there’s an historical comparison being made. It takes nothing away from Coogler and his accomplishment with Sinners to acknowledge that the discussion of crediting directors with the box office success of franchise pictures makes for a less clear cut discussion than in Spielberg’s era, since it would mean we’d have to also talk about the success of the Russo brothers.
Just read the linked article, which addresses and confirms the point I already made.
Oof, we all feel exhausted for you! For illegitimate power, which is all racial capitalism is, scrutiny like yours, which is evidence-based, is the worst kind of "aggression." Because that system is not interested in critique or a sober "market" analysis--it just says it is. Hollywood is a cultural and political engine of meaning-making. It resists allowing voices it considers marginal/inferior to speak from the center, to be the representative face of the US culture abroad. The irony of course is, it already is; the most popular and profitable American pop culture has always been Black American culture.
Preach 🙏🏽🙏🏽