Chris Rock’s “Head of State” claimed the top spot at the box office last weekend. It’s not often that a minority filmmaker’s movie featuring minorities takes the crowning spot. Ask Spike Lee. Only once, for “He Got Game,” has one of the nation’s most talented directors received the box office crown.
But the fact that Rock’s new film took that spot prophesies a new era of diversity in film.
“Head of State,” which Rock directed, co-wrote and starred in, left John Travolta’s new film, “Basic,” in fourth place. “The Core,” another action movie starring primarily white actors, took third place.
The evolution of American film from a past of staunch racism to a present of flourishing diversity in theaters and on screen has been long and hard. The history is essential.
The movie that fathered modern American cinema came with a disgraceful stain. Critics often credit D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film “The Birth of a Nation” as a piece of visionary art created on a grand scale. It included epic battle sequences which incorporated thousands of extras, revolutionary usage of camera shots and angles and a method of cogent storytelling so quickly and gracefully absorbed by popular cinema that we couldn’t distinguish it if we tried.
“The Birth of a Nation” is one of the most offensive films ever made. Portraying blacks as lazy drunkards and lechers, the movie glorified the Ku Klux Klan and its virulent breed of racism. Griffith’s film depicted blacks as a scourge upon the Southern states and members of the Klan as warriors battling for the freedom and dignity of their race and families.
America received its first feature-length motion picture with audible dialogue a mere 12 years later.
“The Jazz Singer” bore the mark of racism, as the plot revolved around a young singer who resorts to using blackface to play in the jazz clubs. The cover illustration of the Warner Brothers video edition of the film shows one of the most repugnant images in film history: Al Jolson, bent on one knee, singing his heart out in blackface.
The purpose of these brief history lessons should be clear: Understanding the context and history of a situation is essential to understanding the situation itself. America took bounds and leaps in race relations and culture since, and though ethnicity in film is important, ethnicity and diversity in the audience is just as crucial.
Until recently, films starring blacks primarily attracted blacks. Now Hollywood realizes the burgeoning, widespread acceptance of minorities in very mainstream films, tapping the potential of Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker. According to the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com), “Rush Hour” brought in $141 million domestically. Its sequel earned $226 million in the USA.
Neither of the films’ main characters is white, but the box office figures indicate the white audience was reached. No longer are white leads needed to draw white crowds. The days of the Arnold Schwarzenegger juggernaut-action-flick may be numbered.
Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan are not the only harbingers of minority acceptance onscreen. “Cradle 2 the Grave,” “Exit Wounds” and “Romeo Must Die” drew audiences whose ethnicity did not necessarily reflect that of the cast.
With the advancements we have made, we stand on the edge of a new generation of cinema, where ethnicity may slowly become less of an issue. It is a signal of greater diversity both onscreen and in the seats of the theaters. It is a signal of the homogenization of a nation and perhaps a greater sense of empathy, enjoyment and understanding.