Showing posts with label Hollywood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hollywood. Show all posts

Friday, January 22, 2016

What's Really At Stake In The Oscars Boycott Movement?

ALL,

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT FROM 1857 IS AS ALWAYS A POWERFUL REMINDER TO ALL OF US WHAT THIS ENTIRE SITUATION IS REALLY ALL ABOUT AND WHAT THE STAKES REALLY ARE IN THIS CONFLICT...AND IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS IT AIN'T GOT A DAMN THING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE IS NOMINATED FOR OR RECEIVES AN AWARD:

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” -- --FREDERICK DOUGLASS, August 3, 1857 

Kofi


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/…/oscars-academy-president…

All,

This feeble “response” by the token black president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is absolutely PATHETIC, isn’t it? Not to mention utterly predictable. After all It's no coincidence that here we find yet another black token president of a white supremacist institution (this time in Hollyweird instead of Washington D.C.) crying crocodile tears over the brazenly obvious fact that she is the head resident custodian of an institution that despises and has no human, social, economic, political, moral, or ethical regard for not only her but anyone who even looks like her (i.e. “ the nonwhites"). But the much larger and far more important question is this: WHEN WILL THE MORE THAN 100 MILLION PEOPLE OF COLOR IN THE UNITED HATES ACTUALLY FIGHT FOR, DEMAND, ORGANIZE, CREATE, AND SUSTAIN VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PRESENT WHITE SUPREMACIST INSTITUTIONS THAT CURRENTLY OPPRESS AND EXPLOIT US WITH OUR IMPLICIT/COMPLICIT CONSENT?…OR HASN’T ANYONE HERE EVER HEARD OF A LITTLE PRINCIPLE CALLED SELF DETERMINATION?…

Kofi 

Academy President Issues Lengthy Statement on Lack of Oscars Diversity
‪#‎OscarsSoWhite‬ Creator Endorses Oscar Boycott
by Stephen Galloway.
1/18/2016



CHERYL BOONE ISSACS
(b. 1949)
In the wake of Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith announcing they will not be attending this year's Oscars, Cheryl Boone Isaacs says she was "heartbroken and frustrated" by the nominations, which did not include any performers of color.
Cheryl Boone Isaacs, president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, on Monday issued a lengthy statement on the lack of diversity in this year's Oscar nominations, which has become the subject of mounting criticism.

"I’d like to acknowledge the wonderful work of this year’s nominees," she said. "While we celebrate their extraordinary achievements, I am both heartbroken and frustrated about the lack of inclusion. This is a difficult but important conversation, and it’s time for big changes.

"The Academy is taking dramatic steps to alter the makeup of our membership. In the coming days and weeks we will conduct a review of our membership recruitment in order to bring about much-needed diversity in our 2016 class and beyond," Boone Isaacs said in what amounted to a rare and unusual move on the part of the Academy.

"As many of you know," she continued, "we have implemented changes to diversify our membership in the last four years. But the change is not coming as fast as we would like. We need to do more, and better and more quickly."

"This isn’t unprecedented for the Academy," added Boone Isaacs. "In the ‘60s and ‘70s, it was about recruiting younger members to stay vital and relevant. In 2016, the mandate is inclusion in all of its facets: gender, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. We recognize the very real concerns of our community, and I so appreciate all of you who have reached out to me in our effort to move forward together."

Read More David Oyelowo Goes Off on Oscars: "I Am an Academy Member and It Doesn't Reflect Me"


Speaking to The Hollywood Reporter earlier Monday evening just before she was honored with the Rosa Parks Humanitarian Award at the King Legacy Awards, presented at the Sheraton Gateway Hotel in Los Angeles, Boone Isaacs said that “there’s been enough conversation” and that it is time for the entertainment industry to take action to improve diversity.

She said that she was “disappointed” that, for the second year in a row, the Oscar nominations, announced last week, failed to include any performers of color. Academy CEO Dawn Hudson, who was also in attendance, added that she was "devastated" by the nominations.

The Academy again finds itself the focus of criticism over the lack of opportunities for minorities within the film industry. Earlier on Monday, Spike Lee, who received an honorary Oscar from the Academy at its Board of Governors Awards in November, announced in an Instagram post that he and his wife Tonya Lewis Lee “cannot support it” and would not attend the upcoming Oscars on Feb. 28.

"Mean No Disrespect To My Friends, Host Chris Rock and Producer Reggie Hudlin, President Isaacs And The Academy," Lee wrote. "But, How Is It Possible For The 2nd Consecutive Year All 20 Contenders Under The Actor Category Are White? And Let's Not Even Get Into The Other Branches. 40 White Actors In 2 Years And No Flava At All. We Can't Act?! WTF!!"

Read More Oscars: Jada Pinkett Smith Says She Won't Attend Awards, Contemplates Appropriate Response to Lack of Nonwhite Nominees


The Academy president said she had not heard from Lee about his decision, but that she remained a strong supporter of his in general. 

Boone Isaacs, who is African-American, said she herself has experienced racism, but declined to go into detail. 

At the same time, she said even if it is the industry that is to blame for not creating more diverse product, it would be wrong for the Academy to avoid responsibility in a year when there has been at least a handful of movies with actors of color that she found worthy of nomination. 

'There've been four or five wonderful movies,' she said, citing Lee’s own Chi-Raq, Concussion, Creed, Beasts of No Nation and Straight Outta Compton. 

Boone Isaacs noted that the Academy has formed a committee, made up of members of the industry, to explore how to improve diversity. She announced earlier at the Governors Awards that the Academy is developing a five-year plan called A2020 with an eye toward improving diversity within the Academy itself and the industry at large. 

http://www.nytimes.com/…/oscars-diversity-academy-voting-ru…

Academy Board Endorses Changes to Increase Diversity in Oscar Nominees and Itself
by MICHAEL CIEPLY
January. 22, 2016
New York Times

“The academy is going to lead and not wait for the industry to catch up,” said Cheryl Boone Isaacs, the academy’s president. Credit Kevin Winter/Getty Images

LOS ANGELES — Confronting a fierce protest over a second straight year of all-white Oscar acting nominations, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences said on Friday that it would make radical changes to its voting requirements, recruiting process and governing structure, with an aim toward increasing the diversity of its membership.

The changes were approved at an unusual special meeting of the group’s 51-member governing board Thursday night. The session ended with a unanimous vote to endorse the new processes, but action on possible changes to Oscar balloting was deferred for later consideration. The board said its goal was to double the number of female and minority members by 2020.

Related in Opinion:
Contributing Op-Ed Writer: The Oscars and Hollywood’s Race Problem
January. 22, 2016


“The academy is going to lead and not wait for the industry to catch up,” the academy’s president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, said in a statement. Ms. Isaacs referred to an often-repeated complaint that the academy, in its lack of diversity, reflects the demographics of a film industry that for years has been primarily white and male.

The most striking of the changes is a requirement that the voting status of both new and current members be reviewed every 10 years.


Voting status may be revoked for those who have not been active in the film business in a decade. But members who have had three 10-year terms will have lifetime voting rights, as will those who have won or been nominated for an Academy Award.

The academy’s membership is made up of roughly 6,200 movie professionals around the world, and it was not immediately clear how many would be purged from the voting rolls by the new rule.

The changes, and possible balloting adjustments, will not affect this year’s awards, which will be presented on Feb. 28.

Related Coverage:
Oscars So White? Or Oscars So Dumb? Discuss.
January 15, 2016

The Carpetbagger: Charlotte Rampling Says Oscars ‘Boycott’ Is ‘Racist Against Whites’
January 22, 2016


In the short term, the new rules and processes may tamp down some of the criticism that resulted when no film focusing primarily on minority characters was among this year’s eight best picture nominees, and all 20 acting nominees were white.

Ava DuVernay, who was not nominated last year for her direction of the best picture nominee “Selma,” declined to comment on the changes, but tweeted the academy’s letter, and added, “One good step in a long, complicated journey for people of color + women artists.”

But the moves by the academy, which aims to replace older members with a younger, more diverse group, are certain to be met with some criticism, and perhaps resistance. Academy voting rights rank among Hollywood’s more coveted marks of status, not least because of the screening invitations and flattering attention that come with them.

“I’m squarely in what I would call the mentorship phase of my life,” said Sam Weisman, a member of the academy’s directors’ branch since 1998. While working steadily in television, he has not had a feature directing credit since “Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star” in 2003.



“I judge the Nicholl fellowships and the Student Academy Awards, but am I not qualified to vote?” asked Mr. Weisman, referring to academy mentorship programs in which he has been involved.

The academy will also expand its governing board by adding three new seats. Those are to be filled by the group’s president with an eye toward increasing the number of women and minorities on the board. Currently, about a third of the board members are women and Ms. Isaacs is its only African-American.

In a parallel move, the academy will add new members from diverse backgrounds to its various committees.

Stephanie Allain, a producer of “Beyond the Lights” (2014) and “Hustle & Flow” (2005) and a member of the academy, said she was elated, especially with the addition of three members to Board of Governors who, she assumed, would be women or people of color.

“The world is watching, basically, so what are we going to do?” said Ms. Allain, who is black. “Are we going to do the right thing? And I think that we have.”

Many in the industry say that especially in the studio world, opportunities have been slower to come to female filmmakers, an imbalance that the academy’s proposed expansion is unlikely to fix. 

“The academy is the endgame,” Ms. Allain said. “But the beginning of the game is the industry responding to the curated talent that comes through programs like Film Independent, the folks that go through the Sundance Film Festival and the LA Film Festival. They just need jobs. That’s how we’re really going to solve the problem — not by more programs or committees, but by jobs.”

Without providing details, the academy’s statement also said it would “supplement the traditional process” by which members are recruited — an invitation process meant to focus on achievement — with “an ambitious, global campaign to identify and recruit qualified new members who represent greater diversity.”

One person briefed on the changes, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of confidentiality strictures, said the supplemental recruiting would be a year-round process, and would be heavily influenced by staff and officers rather than traditional membership committees. While Will Smith, who was overlooked as a nominee for his role in “Concussion,” has said he will not attend this year’s ceremony, Charlotte Rampling, who was nominated for best actress for “45 Years,” condemned much of the protest on Friday as being “racist against whites.”

“One can never really know, but perhaps the black actors did not deserve to make the final list,” Ms. Rampling said in an interview with the French radio network Europe 1 that was done before the academy made its announcement.

Still far from certain is whether the voting changes, and further possible tweaks to the Oscar ballot — for instance a return to the 10-film field of best picture nominees used in 2010 and 2011 — will restore the more diverse set of nominations that prevailed in the decade leading to the choice of “12 Years a Slave” as best picture in 2014.


In those 10 years, 24 of the 200 acting nominees were black, approximately matching the proportion of blacks in the North American movie audience and population, according to statistics compiled by the Motion Picture Association of America.

Black actors who won Oscars during that period included Octavia Spencer for “The Help,” Mo’Nique for “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” Jennifer Hudson for “Dreamgirls” and Jamie Foxx for “Ray.” When Mr. Foxx won, in 2005, he was also nominated for best supporting actor for his role in “Collateral.”

In 2014, Lupita Nyong’o was named best supporting actress for her role in “12 Years a Slave,” John Ridley won an Oscar for writing its adapted screenplay, and Steve McQueen, who is also black, was nominated as the film’s director, but lost to Alfonso Cuarón, who is Mexican. Last year’s best director, Alejandro González Iñárritu, is also Mexican.

Last year, however, along with Ms. DuVernay being left out, David Oyelowo was not nominated for his critically acclaimed role as Martin Luther King Jr. in “Selma.”

This year’s shutout of minority actors caused particular outrage among those who had believed Mr. Smith might be nominated, or perhaps Michael B. Jordan for his role in “Creed” or Idris Elba as a supporting actor for “Beasts of No Nation.” The director of “Creed,” Ryan Coogler, who is black, was also overlooked.

“Straight Outta Compton” faced a tougher climb in the acting categories, because its young cast was an ensemble, with no obvious leads. But the film has been nominated for a Screen Actors Guild ensemble award, and for a best film award from the Producers Guild of America.

“I think it’s completely ridiculous to bring in ethnicity to the evaluation of creative performances and filmmaking and acting,” said Kieth Merrilll, 75, who won an Oscar in 1974 for his documentary “The Great American Cowboy” and was nominated in 1998 for best documentary short. He also noted that he had an adopted black daughter and four black grandchildren. “We’re supposed to be evaluating talent in categories, and one of the categories is ‘What is their ethnicity?’ To make it one of the categories is ridiculous.”

The speed and breadth of the board’s Thursday night action surprised even some academy insiders, who at midweek were predicting no action until a regularly scheduled board meeting on Tuesday, and who were strongly playing down any steps to trim the voting rights of older members.

How the academy deals with the intricacies of “activity” in the film business may raise complex questions, said Mr. Weisman, the director. If, like Mr. Weisman, a director has had development deals that did not result in a film, will he be ruled inactive? Will writers who have generated scripts that were not bought, or made, likewise lose privileges? Might a cagey executive put a dormant publicist on low-cost retainer during Oscar season, protecting and perhaps influencing that member’s vote?

In its statement on Friday, the academy said those members who are moved to emeritus status because they have not met the new activity criteria would not pay dues, but would continue to enjoy the privileges of membership other than voting.

Correction: January 22, 2016

An earlier version of this article misidentified the Oscar-winning director in 2014, It was Alfonso Cuarón, not Alejandro González Iñárritu.

Cara Buckley contributed reporting from Park City, Utah; Rachel Donadio from Paris; and Lorne Manly from New York.
A version of this article appears in print on January 23, 2016, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Oscars to Lead By Example On Diversity.




Media

Academy Members Respond to Swift Changes for Board
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
January 22, 2016
The reaction to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences saying on Friday that it was taking steps to double the number of female and minority members by 2020 was varied.

Some members lauded the move, saying it was necessary in the wake of a second straight year in which no minority actors were cited among the 20 acting nominees. Other members were critical and wondered how older members of the academy would be affected.

 Stephanie Allain, a producer of “Beyond the Lights” (2014) and “Hustle & Flow” (2005)

“I think it’s great they responded so quickly. I think, just from my cursory read of it, it is a really great way to go.”
She said she was especially impressed with the addition of three members to the Board of Governors who would, she assumed, would be women or people of color.

“We’re so visible that we should play a leadership role,” she said, adding, “The world is watching, basically, so what are we going to do? Are we going to do the right thing? And I think that we have.”

She also said, “The Academy is the endgame. But the beginning of the game is the industry responding to the curated talent that comes through programs like Film Independent, the folks that go through the Sundance Film Festival and the LA Film Festival. They just need jobs. That’s how we’re really going to solve the problem — not by more programs or committees, but by jobs.”

Kieth Merrill, who won an Oscar in 1974 for his documentary “The Great American Cowboy” and was nominated for best documentary short in 1997

Mr. Merrill, 75, said he found the changes and the logic behind them outlandish.

“I’m sure I’ll sound racist, I’m sure I’ll sound prejudiced, and I’m not. I think it’s completely ridiculous to bring in ethnicity to the evaluation of creative performances and filmmaking and acting,” Mr. Merrill said, noting several times that he had an adopted black daughter and four black grandchildren.

“We’re supposed to be evaluating talent in categories, and one of the categories is ‘what is their ethnicity?’ ” he said. “To make it one of the categories is ridiculous.”

Michael Moore, Oscar winner in 2003 for best documentary for “Bowling for Columbine”

“These are good changes, but what’s amazing is how swiftly the Academy has reacted,” Mr. Moore said in an email. “A change like this in the old days would’ve taken years (if at all), not days. Now let’s hope that the real culprit in keeping Hollywood so white and male — the industry itself — will make similar changes.”

Photo: Michael Moore, documentary filmmaker: “These are good changes, but what’s amazing is how swiftly the Academy has reacted,” Credit Dog Eat Dog Films

He added that six years ago, “doubling the number of African-Americans in the doc branch would have meant doubling the number zero to ... zero. I and others began an effort to change this in 2010 and now we have around a dozen in our branch. I’m going to propose at the next meeting we double that number THIS year, not by 2020.”

Sam Weisman, director of films like “George of the Jungle” and “Bye Bye Love”

“I judge the Nicholl fellowships and the student Academy Awards, but am I not qualified to vote?” asked Mr. Weisman, referring to academy mentorship programs in which he has been involved.

How the academy deals with the intricacies of “activity” in the film business, he noted, may raise complex questions. Mr. Weisman’s last feature credit was “Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star” in 2003, though he has done extensive television work since then. If, like Mr. Weisman, a director has had development deals that did not result in a film, will he be ruled out?

“This is a way to get this off their plates in advance of the awards show,” Mr. Weisman said, referring to the controversy over the lack of diversity among this year’s nominees.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

What is Chris Rock Talking About and Why Is He Saying It?: The Dangerous Absence of Critical Thought and the Infantile and Pervasive Reality of Self Delusion and Magical Thinking in the U.S. Today



“...I never limited myself. And that's the beauty of Obama. It might be a generational thing, because the difference between Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson was that Jesse Jackson never actually ran for president. He ran to disrupt the presidency. If he actually ran for president, he probably could have been president. Jesse Jackson won a bunch of primaries in Southern states, but not for five seconds did he think he could be president, whereas Obama was like, "Yeah, I could be president," and nobody stopped him. Literally, nobody stopped him.”
                               —Chris Rock, from the last paragraph of his December 12, 2014 Hollywood Reporter article “It’s a White Industry” on racism in Hollywood

"If my mind can conceive it and my heart can believe it I know I can achieve it”
                           —Jesse Jackson campaign slogan in 1988 candidacy for the Democratic Party nomination for President

All,

I just read an alarmingly mindless, outlandishly FALSE and bizarrely absurd statement by Chris Rock that if only Jesse Jackson had possessed enough "personal confidence" in 1984 and 1988 to “think” he could actually become President (because as Rock states incredulously Jackson “won a bunch of primaries in southern states”; for the record Jackson won a grand total of only six southern state primaries spread over both 1984 and 1988 and only 16 primaries total overall in both years accounting for 20% of the national Democratic primary vote overall), he could have actually become President, and that the difference between Jackson and Obama is that Obama actually “believed” and “thought” he could become the President and that because of his "self confidence" and "self belief" (bolstered by his simply “thinking” he could do it) “nobody stopped him, literally nobody stopped him" (from becoming President).  Huh? WTF!  Is Chris Rock REALLY THIS STUPID?  Is he completely incapable of understanding even simple second grade ARITHMETIC when it comes to determining not only why Jesse Jackson (or any other African American--let alone Latino, or Asian American human being-- could absolutely NEVER have become President of the United States from 1984-2008 no matter how much “self confidence”, “belief”, or “positive thinking” they possessed)?  In fact no white female could possibly have won the nomination either! (and haven’t since).  Has Rock never heard of national population/voting demographics?  Which is to say of course that if Barack Obama or any other “ black person" had run for the presidential nomination when Jackson did in the 1980s they too wouldn’t have had a chance in hell of winning the nomination of either major political party— thus let alone actually running for the Presidency even if Obama had the “self confidence, belief, and positive thinking” of a hundred individuals. Doesn’t Rock even know that 90% of the national electorate was white in 1984 and 1988 and the national white share of the voting electorate has now shrunk 18% in the past 25 years to 72% as of 2012, and that is the ONLY reason why Obama even had any chance at all to win the nomination of the Democratic Party to be able to run for the Presidency in the first place? Or does Rock even know that if either John McCain or Mitt Romney had received a mere 33% of the black vote in either 2008 or 2012 they would have beaten Obama in a landslide? (for the record McCain received a paltry 4% of the black vote and Romney got 6%).  This shouldn’t be necessary to say to any reasonably intelligent person but here goes anyway:  the difference between Jackson and Obama is decidedly NOT a “generational” thing.  It is a very simple ‘MATH (I mean arithmetic) THING”  And while we are still engaged in sheer fantasy here:  Imagine if Jackson had actually won the Democratic Party nomination in either 1984 or 1988?  Would “positive thinking” and Obama-like “self belief” had made it possible to get elected. considering that the actual white nominee candidate Walter Mondale was crushed in a massive landslide by Ronald Reagan in 1984 (Mondale won exactly ONE STATE—his native Minnesota) and that the white DP nominee Michael Dukakis lost in 1988 and won only ten states nationally against George H.W. Bush. Considering that Jackson’s political positions were also far to the left of both Mondale and Dukakis in what political UNIVERSE would Jackson have ever won his party’s nomination let alone become the president of this country?   

In addition what kind of idiotic “magical thinking” (which is to say grandiose self delusion) would allow Rock to make such a brazenly false, and completely ludicrous statement that "nothing could stop Obama" because Obama simply believed otherwise, and that if Jackson had in Rock's warped view simply “thought he could be President” he "probably could have been President" in spite of everything?   What accounts for this kind of infantile utterly nonsensical “ thinking” by Rock and so many other people today?  And why is Chris Rock (and incredibly ignorant and shallow dolts like Kevin Hart and Jay Z and so many other clueless black and white public figures in the arts and politics today) allowed to make these kind of outrageously DUMB statements on a regular basis by every major media outlet (print and electronic) in the country?  Well it’s a completely depressing RHETORICAL QUESTION at this point in American history isn’t it?  This is yet another textbook lesson in how the heinous doctrines and practices of white supremacy and ruling class capitalist domination and control wins by default both culturally and politically these days…It’s called COMPLICITY…and it’s killing us…(with our suicidal consent that is)…

P.S.  Rock’s piece in the Hollywood Reporter is far from “blistering.”  Weak, apologetic, fatalistic, confused, and meandering is more like it…

Kofi   


Chris Rock Pens Blistering Essay on Hollywood's Race Problem: "It's a White Industry”
by Chris Rock
12/3/2014

This story first appeared in the Dec. 12 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine.


 
I was probably 19 when I first came to Hollywood. Eddie Murphy brought me out to do Beverly Hills Cop II and he had a deal at Paramount, so I remember going through the gates of the Paramount lot. He's in a Rolls-Royce, and he's not just a star, he's the biggest star in the world. Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer's office was in the same building as Eddie's office, and they would come to work every day with matching cars. Some days it would be the Porsches, and the next day it would be Ferraris. I was like the kid in A Bronx Tale. I got to just hang around when the biggest parts of show business were happening. I was only there a couple of weeks, but I remember every day Jeffrey Katzenberg would call Eddie Murphy — I don't even know if Eddie was calling him back — but it was like, "Jeffrey Katzenberg called again." "Janet Jackson just called." "Michael Jackson called." It was that crazy. I've still never seen anything like it. I had a small part in the movie, but my dream was bigger than that. I wanted to have a convertible Rolls-Royce with a fine girl driving down Melrose blasting Prince.

Now I'm not Murphy, but I've done fine. And I try to help young black guys coming up because those people took chances on me. Eddie didn't have to put me in Beverly Hills Cop II. Keenen Wayans didn't have to put me in I'm Gonna Git You Sucka. Arsenio didn't have to let me on his show. I'd do the same for a young white guy, but here's the difference: Someone's going to help the white guy. Multiple people will. The people whom I've tried to help, I'm not sure anybody was going to help them.

And I have a decent batting average. I still remember people thinking I was crazy for hiring Wanda Sykes on my old HBO show. I recommended J.B. Smoove for Saturday Night Live, and I just helped Leslie Jones get on that show. She's about as funny as a human being can be, but she didn't go to Second City, she doesn't do stand-up at The Cellar and she's not in with Judd Apatow, so how the hell was she ever going to get through unless somebody like me says to Lorne Michaels, "Hey, look at this person"? I saw her at a comedy club four or five years ago, and I wrote her name down in my phone. I probably called four managers — the biggest managers in comedy — to manage her, and all of them said no. They didn't get it. They didn't get it until Lorne said yes a few years later, and then it was too late.

Some of these younger black guys just want me to see their act. Some come to me for advice. Hannibal Buress called the other day. They want to know about agents and managers and the business; this kind of deal and that kind of deal; dealing with the media and dealing with family; money crap and where they should live. It's big brother shit, and they ask because there aren't that many black people to turn to. Who do you hire? Where's the big black PR agency? Where are the big black agents? Where's the big black film producer? That's why I've been all over Steve McQueen. I put a microchip in Steve's pocket and track him like an Uber driver. Steve thinks we keep bumping into each other by accident. "Hey, Steve, my man!" I don't care if I have to play a whip, I'm going to be in a Steve McQueen movie. But I digress.

It's a white industry. Just as the NBA is a black industry. I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. It just is. And the black people they do hire tend to be the same person. That person tends to be female and that person tends to be Ivy League. And there's nothing wrong with that. As a matter of fact, that's what I want for my daughters. But something tells me that the life my privileged daughters are leading right now might not make them the best candidates to run the black division of anything. And the person who runs the black division of a studio should probably have worked with black people at some point in their life. Clint Culpepper [a white studio chief who specializes in black movies] does a good job at  Screen Gems because he's the kind of guy who would actually go see Best Man Holiday. But how many black men have you met working in Hollywood? They don't really hire black men. A black man with bass in his voice and maybe a little hint of facial hair? Not going to happen. It is what it is. I'm a guy who's accepted it all.

We cut it out in Top Five, but there had been a scene where Kevin Hart, who plays my character's agent, is in his office talking to me, and he finds out that "Zoolander" (Ben Stiller) is down the hall and he's mad because none of the agents called him. He's the only black agent at the agency, and there was a line in the movie like, "I'm the only black agent here. They never invite me to anything, and these people are liberals. This isn't the Klan."

But forget whether Hollywood is black enough. A better question is: Is Hollywood Mexican enough? You're in L.A, you've got to try not to hire Mexicans. It's the most liberal town in the world, and there's a part of it that's kind of racist — not racist like "F— you, nigger" racist, but just an acceptance that there's a slave state in L.A. There's this acceptance that Mexicans are going to take care of white people in L.A. that doesn't exist anywhere else. I remember I was renting a house in Beverly Park while doing some movie, and you just see all of the Mexican people at 8 o'clock in the morning in a line driving into Beverly Park like it's General Motors. It's this weird town.

You're telling me no Mexicans are qualified to do anything at a studio? Really? Nothing but mop up? What are the odds that that's true? The odds are, because people are people, that there's probably a Mexican David Geffen mopping up for somebody's company right now. The odds are that there's probably a Mexican who's that smart who's never going to be given a shot. And it's not about being given a shot to greenlight a movie because nobody is going to give you that — you've got to take that. The shot is that a Mexican guy or a black guy is qualified to go and give his opinion about how loud the boings are in Dodgeball or whether it's the right shit sound you hear when Jeff Daniels is on the toilet in Dumb and Dumber. It's like, "We only let white people do that." This is a system where only white people can chime in on that. There would be a little naivete to sitting around and going, "Oh, no black person has ever greenlighted a movie," but those other jobs? You're kidding me, right? They don't even require education. When you're on the lower levels, they're just about taste, nothing else. And you don't have to go to Harvard to have taste.

Fifteen years ago, I tried to create an equivalent to The Harvard Lampoon at Howard University, to give young black comedy writers the same  opportunity that white comedy writers have. I wish we could've made it work. The reason it worked at Harvard and not at Howard is that the kids at Howard need money. It's that simple. Kids at Harvard come from money — even the broke ones come from money. They can afford to work at a newspaper and make no money. The kids at Howard are like, "Dude, I love comedy, but I've got a f—ing tuition that I've got to pay for here." But that was 15 years ago; it might be easier to do it now because of the Internet. I don't know.

I really don't think there's any difference between what black audiences find funny and what white audiences find funny, but everyone likes to see themselves onscreen, so there are some instances where there's a black audience laughing at something that a white audience wouldn't laugh at because a black audience is really just happy to see itself. Things that would be problems in a world where there were a lot of black movies get overlooked. The same thing happened with those Sex and the City movies. You don't really see that level of female movie that much, so women were like, "We're only going to get this every whatever, so f— you, f— the reviews, we're going, we like it."

And you should at least be able to count on your people, and then it grows from there. If someone's people don't love them, that's a problem. No one crosses over without a base. But if we're going to just be honest and count dollars and seats and not look at skin color, Kevin Hart is the biggest comedian in the world. If Kevin Hart is playing 40,000 seats in a night and Jon Stewart is playing 3,000, the fact that Jon Stewart's 3,000 are white means Kevin has to cross over? That makes no sense. If anybody needs to cross over, it's the guy who's selling 3,000 seats.

But here's one thing I've noticed in the last five to seven years, and I didn't think I'd live to see this day. There used to be black film and Eddie Murphy, and the two had nothing to do with each other. Literally nothing. And in the world of black film, everything was judged on a relative basis — almost the same curve that indie films get judged on. It was, "Hey, House Party made a lot of money relative to its budget," or "Oh, we only paid $7 million for New Jack City and it made $50 million." Now, not only are black movies making money, they're expected to make money — and they're expected to make money on the same scale as everything else.

Read more Writer Roundtable: Chris Rock, Gillian Flynn on Their "Perfect Movies," 'Gone Girl' Backlash and Unhappy Endings

I think they've been better in the last few years, too — a little more daring, a little funnier. But look, most movies suck. Absolutely suck. They just do. Most TV shows suck. Most books suck. If most things were good, I'd make $15 an hour. I don't live the way I live because most things are even remotely good. But when you have a system where you probably only see three movies with African-American leads in them a year, they're going to be judged more harshly, and you're really rooting for them to be good a little more so than the 140 movies starring white people every year.

The best ones are made outside of the studio system because they're not made with that many white people — maybe one or two, but not a whole system of white people. I couldn't have made Top Five at a studio. First of all, no one's going to make a movie with a premise so little and artsy: a star putting out a movie and getting interviewed by a woman from The New York Times. I would have had to have three two-hour meetings explaining that black people also read The New York Times. A studio would've made it like Malibu's Most Wanted. And never in a million years would they have allowed a scene where the rich guy comes back to the projects and actually gets along with everybody. No way. In most black movies — and in most black TV shows and even in most black plays — anyone with money or an education is evil, even movies made by black directors. They have to be saved by the poor people. This goes back to Good Times and What's Happening!!

Now, when it comes to casting, Hollywood pretty much decides to cast a black guy or they don't. We're never on the "short list." We're never "in the mix." When there's a hot part in town and the guys are reading for it, that's just what happens. It was never like, "Is it going to be Ryan Gosling or Chiwetel Ejiofor for Fifty Shades of Grey?" And you know, black people f—, too. White women actually want to f— black guys, sometimes more than white guys. More women want to f— Tyrese than Jamie Dornan, and it's not even close. It's not a contest. Even Jamie would go, "OK, you got it."

Or how about True Detective? I never heard anyone go, "Is it going to be Amy Adams or Gabrielle Union?" for that show. I didn't hear one black girl's name on those lists. Not one. Literally everyone in town was up for that part, unless you were black. And I haven't read the script, but something tells me if Gabrielle Union were Colin Farrell's wife, it wouldn't change a thing. And there are almost no black women in film. You can go to whole movies and not see one black woman. They'll throw a black guy a bone. OK, here's a black guy. But is there a single black woman in Interstellar? Or Gone Girl? Birdman? The Purge? Neighbors? I'm not sure there are. I don't remember them. I go to the movies almost every week, and I can go a month and not see a black woman having an actual speaking part in a movie. That's the truth.

But there's been progress. When I was on Saturday Night Live a few weeks ago, we did a sketch where I was Sasheer Zamata's dad and she had an Internet show. Twenty years ago when I was on Saturday Night Live, anything with black people on the show had to deal with race, and that sketch we did didn't have anything to do with race. That was the beauty: The sketch is funny because it's funny, and that's the progress. And there are black guys who are making it: Whatever Kevin Hart wants to do right now, he can do; I think Chiwetel is a really respected actor who is getting a lot of great shots just because he's really good; if Steve McQueen wants to direct a Marvel movie, they would salivate to get him. Change just takes time. The Triborough Bridge has been the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge for almost 20 years now, but we still call it the Triborough Bridge. That's how long it takes shit to change. We're not going to be calling it the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge for another 10, 15 years. People will have to die for it actually to be the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge.

I don't think the world expected things to change overnight because Obama got elected president. Of course it's changed, though, it's just changed with kids. And when you're a kid, you're not thinking of any of this shit. Black kids watch The Lord of the Rings and they want to be the Lord of the Rings. I remember when they were doing Starsky & Hutch, and my manager was like, "We might be able to get you the part of Huggy Bear," which eventually went to Snoop Dogg. I was like: "Do you understand that when my brother and I watched Starsky and Hutch growing up, I would play Starsky and he would play Hutch? I don't want to play f—ing Huggy Bear. This is not a historical drama. This is not Thomas Jefferson. It's a movie based on a shitty TV show, it can be anybody. Who cares. If they want me to play Starsky or Hutch, or even the bad guy, I'm down. But Huggy Bear?"

I wouldn't be here if I thought I couldn't play those parts. I never limited myself. And that's the beauty of Obama. It might be a generational thing, because the difference between Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson was that Jesse Jackson never actually ran for president. He ran to disrupt the presidency. If he actually ran for president, he probably could have been president. Jesse Jackson won a bunch of primaries in Southern states, but not for five seconds did he think he could be president, whereas Obama was like, "Yeah, I could be president," and nobody stopped him. Literally, nobody stopped him.