Is South Africa now sexist instead of racist?

For more than half of my life South Africa was a nation divided by segregation and racism. And I wish that that was the full extent of their flawed and divisive system, but the truth is that they were like this for well over 100 years. But now that apartheid is gone, South Africa seems to be moving forward to just discriminating against women.

At least this is what I get from the recent protest against Jennifer Hudson. It has been reveiled that Hudson has been picked to portray Winnie Madikizela-Mandela in an upcoming movie. And there are those in South Africa that oppose this.

The film is to be made in South Africa, with a director that is from there and made several other films about the nation and it's troubled (to say the least) past. In each of Darrell J. Roodt'd prior films (Sarafina and Cry, The Beloved Country) a mix of American and other actors too on prominent roles. That is what enabled these films to have a life outside of South Africa and to be seen across the world.

But that's not good enough anymore it seems

"This decision must be reversed, it must be stopped now," union secretary general Oupa Lebogo said in The Times. "If the matter doesn't come up for discussion, we will push for a moratorium to be placed on the film."

Now here are 2 very good questions I would ask Lebogo. First, if this film is not allowed to be made as is, who does he think will see the film and thus promote South Africa as a nation changed from the ways of discrimination and strife? Without a huge name as Jennifer Hudson, does anyone believe that this film might ever be seen in America - or likely any other nation? It may sound mean, but the fact is that I don't recall seeing a South African actor winning an award for a film made in South Africa.

The second question is a bit different but even more pertinant. Why was there no protest about Clint Eastwood's film Invictus?

It stars 2 Americans, Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman, playing prominent South Africans. It has an American director. It was filmed in South Africa, promoting that nation. But it's about men.

The film for Hudson is about women. That's the only difference. Well that and the fact the Jennifer Hudson film is even more connected to South Africa than Clint Eastwood's movie.

It seems to me that this protest in South Africa is just an admission of sexism which replaced the apartheid system in that nation. It's a repression of the people of that land. And it will ultimately hurt South African, not help it.

I guarantee that if Jennifer Hudson does not star in this film, it will be relatively unseen. The movie might be a hit by SA standards, but that's about it. A bad remake of a worse zombie film in America will outperform the SA film in numbers of movie-goers, international attention, and revenue. That's just a fact.

So before South Africa pisses of Jennifer Hudson, women, and Hollywood I think they should shut up. They need the revenue the film will bring their nation. They need the positive attention. They need the support of women as much as they needed it when Nelson Mandela was locked up and Apartheid was the rule of their land.

40th Annual NAACP Image Awards

For those that are needing another Awards show fix until the Oscar Awards, there is hope. The 40th Annual NAACP Image Awards show is just over 24 hours away. Rejoice.

Actually this awards show should be interesting for more than the fact that it highlights the achievements of people of color, something rarely done by the Academy Awards. This year is also the 100th anniversary of the NAACP. Thus I expect the television broadcast to be quite special.

There will be stars a plenty as well. Halle Berry and Tyler Perry will be presenting. Which says nothing of those celebrities in attendance. All of whom I expect to note the significance of what the NAACP has done over the years.

A special honoree will be Muhammad Ali. He is a man well deserving of recognition and I am happy to know he will be singled out for praise. He is one of the major catalysts in some of the changes that have occurred in sports, television, and international perceptions of African Americans. More should credit what he has done and achieved.

Another honoree will be Russell Simmons. He has been highly influential beyond just music. He has been a great role model of how successful any African American businessperson can be. His empire of clothing, music, finance, televison and film ventures is the match of most any business. Such is the power of a mind dedicated in its purpose.

But on the pure awards front here are a few of the categories and my thoughts.

Outstanding Picture:
"Cadillac Records"
"Miracle at St. Anna"
"The Secret Life of Bees"
"Seven Pounds" – I expect this to win
"Tyler Perry’s The Family That Preys"

Outstanding Actor in a Motion Picture
Derek Luke – "Miracle at St. Anna"
Don Cheadle – "Traitor" - This is my pick
Jeffrey Wright – "Cadillac Records"
Rob Brown – "The Express"
Will Smith – "Seven Pounds" - The main competition

Outstanding Actress in a Motion Picture
Alfre Woodard – "Tyler Perry’s The Family That Preys"
Angela Bassett – "Tyler Perry’s Meet The Browns" - Probable winner
Dakota Fanning – "The Secret Life of Bees" - main competition
Queen Latifah – "The Secret Life of Bees"
Rosario Dawson – "Seven Pounds"

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture
Cedric the Entertainer – "Cadillac Records"
Columbus Short – "Cadillac Records"
Dev Patel – "Slumdog Millionaire" - Great choice for popularity with the Oscars
Mos Def – "Cadillac Records"
Nate Parker – "The Secret Life of Bees"

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture
Alicia Keys – "The Secret Life of Bees"
Beyoncé Knowles – "Cadillac Records"
Jennifer Hudson – "The Secret Life of Bees" - The winner
Sophie Okonedo – "The Secret Life of Bees"
Taraji P. Henson – "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"

Outstanding Independent Motion Picture
"Ballast"
"Noah’s Arc: Jumping the Broom"
"Rachel Getting Married"
"Slumdog Millionaire"
"The Visitor"

I am amazed that this category did not include A Good Day To Be Black & Sexy or Diary of a Tired Black Man. I would really have loved to see Diary win too. But such controversy is beyond the NAACP I suppose.

Outstanding Foreign Motion Picture
"Captain Abu Raed"
"The Class"
"Mongol" - Possible winner (but I have not seen it)
"Song of Sparrows"
"Under the Same Moon"

Outstanding Documentary
"The Black List"
"Black Magic"
"CNN Presents: Black in America"
"Dare Not Walk Alone"
"Trouble the Water"

I have no idea in this list, but I would guess it will be CNN. Mostly because of the very positive coverage of President Obama throughout the election.

I am not covering the television choices because I feel that there really is no choice available. There are virtually no lead actors, and too little diversity in television to really have a selection to choose from. That is not the fault of the NAACP, but Hollywood and its double standards. [Though I will say that Sean Combs should never win.]

So with that said, there is your next Awards fix.

Marilyn Manson performs for Obama: what if it happened?

Here is something you don’t hear everyday. In fact I just heard about it today. Supposedly Marilyn Manson was going to have a performance that would have been in behalf of President Obama (then Senator Obama). Can you imagine it?

Now the source of that would be performance is Manson’s ex-girlfriend Evan Rachel Wood. So there is some question on the fact of this. And even more questionable when you factor in that the Obama campaign immediately denied the suggestion.

But I have to wonder what if Manson had performed?

Yes I realize that some find Manson to be weird. His music is not the most mainstream, though he is very popular. His appearance is really the most disturbing part of him to many older Americans I think. Which is a shame as it has nothing to do with talent or ability or his opinions.



The appearance of Manson is also irrelevant to his actions. It was Manson that has gone out and discussed the Columbine massacre in an honest manner. And he is a voice of change and self-responsibility. I may not agree with everything he says, or how, but I respect and understand his position. And much of that is the same kind of change that Obama has campaigned on.

“I think it's terrible when anyone dies, especially if it is someone you know and love. But what is more offensive is that when these tragedies happen, most people don't really care any more than they would about the season finale of Friends or The Real World. I was dumbfounded as I watched the media snake right in, not missing a teardrop, interviewing the parents of dead children, televising the funerals. Then came the witch hunt.

… Right now, everyone is thinking of how they can prevent things like Littleton. How do you prevent AIDS, world war, depression, car crashes? We live in a free country, but with that freedom there is a burden of personal responsibility. Rather than teaching a child what is moral and immoral, right and wrong, we first and foremost can establish what the laws that govern us are.”

It scares me that anyone could be restricted in voicing their comments about America, politics, and life in this nation. Marilyn Manson has as much right to support Obama (or any other politician) as has Jennifer Hudson, Will.I.Am, Oprah, or even Chuck Norris for McCain. They are all Americans and they all had opinions, as did over 120 million other Americans.

I wish Manson did perform on behalf of a politician. And in that performance I would have loved for him to state that appearance, whether it is clothing styles, skin color, or a name are all excuses to close our minds to anyone in those clothes, of that color, with that funny name.

I doubt the Obama campaign would have crumbled. I doubt that it would have gotten Obama more votes. But it might have motivated more of the youth that feel left out of the mainstream. And that itself would have been enough reason for me.

Why do I care about this after the election, and considering the fact it might not be true? Because if Manson did not perform or state his support because of appearances and potential outcry it was a voice in America being silenced. If any American is silenced like that, then we all are less free. And if appearance can silence us, appearance can again become the cause of enslavement of us.

And I won’t allow that to happen without comment or a fight.

And the winners are - 2.25.2007.1

So the Oscars Awards have been handed out. As always there were a few surprises a few let downs and a couple of sure things. I was glad to hear of Ms. Jennifer Hudson’s win. I’m very glad to know that Mr. Forest Whitaker received recognition for his performance in The Last King of Scotland. As my choices go those were right on the mark.

Of course there was the win by Mr. Martin Scorsese for his movie The Departed. Considering how many times he has been nominated there is no shock in his win. The Academy definitely lives up to it’s history of rewarding today for actions in the past. While there are stand-out moments, and big wins for deserving newcomers, like Ms. Hudson, generally winners in the top categories are those with long histories.

Of course the recent wins by Mr. Jamie Foxx and Mr. Whitaker do seem to fly in the face of that. Not to mention the Oscar Academy’s penchant for ignoring any non-white performers. Yet there is still the fact that Dreamgirls was historically not nominated for best picture. Historical in that it was the first time that the film with the most nominations was not also nominated for best picture. Perhaps the fact that only 1.9% of the Academy is African American (out of 5830 members) has had something to do with that.

And yet the Oscar Academy was very consistent in nominating films that the general public never saw, and most likely never will. The difference in what the public feels was a great performance and what the Academy deems award-winning is a vast ocean apart. I’m referring to the loss of Mr. Eddie Murphy. Widely held as the best performance in his acting career, winning several awards leading to this ceremony and then snubbed. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that his next film, Norbit, was a comedy and low-brow. Of course it was made well in advance of the release of Dreamgirls or the Oscar nominations. Comedy is what he has built his career upon. Not that that is a positive in the eyes of the Academy. Some have noted that his joking manner at the Screen Actors Guild Award cost him. Let me say it again, comedian.

Well given the snub of Dreamgirls, and Mr. Murphy I am left with a single thought. I hope that directors will not ignore Mr. Murphy and his abilities.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Screen Actor's Guild Award winners - 1.29.2007.2

Excuse me for a moment as I take a second to give myself a bow. Yes I got 5 out of 7 right – 71% - which I call pretty respectable. If you are wondering why I’m so pleased with myself, of the guesses I made on January 9th for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards [Bad films and Screen Actors Guild Awards hopefuls - 1.9.2007.1] I came pretty close to a clean sweep.

Not too bad for a regular guy. Perhaps the Oscar Award voters are paying attention. They should be. Considering how they have completely disconnected with the public, again, in not nominating Dreamgirls for Best Picture. I would love to hear the reasoning on why it was not nominated. I will give the SAG Awards the benefit of doubt on Little Miss Sunshine, at least they recognized the talent in Dreamgirls by giving them a nomination for best ensemble (basically best picture).

The snub really irritates me. 8 Oscar nominations, but not best picture. Never in 79 years has the leading nominated film not been a best picture. If it is so highly regarded how can it not also be best picture? This reminds me of the fear in 1993, when Malcolm X was not nominated for best picture, nor Mr. Spike Lee for best director. Yet there was large critical acclaim for the film, it won several awards (lesser ones but still won all the same), and Mr. Denzel Washington was easily recognized for his portrayal. In that case though I think the political commentary of Mr. Malcolm X was too much for the predominantly liberal white Oscar committee. [By the way I think this was the reason Mr. Washington won the Oscar. Often the Oscars will give a deserving actor/actress an award in a later good movie for a phenomenal role they were passed over on previously.]

The excuse for Dreamgirls escapes me. It’s popular, making money, still in movie theaters, well done and critically acclaimed – even before the Oscar nod. The only reason I can see for it to get snubbed as it has is a horrible and deplorable reason. I can only hope that isn’t the reason.

But to get back to the point of this post, I am sure that my winning choices will win the Oscar Awards as well. The choices that apply anyway. My congratulations to the winners, Mr. Hugh Laurie (you really should see him play the title character House. Biting wit and sarcasm matched with intense ability. Well written and balanced by an excellent cast), Mr. Forest Whitaker (a long time favorite of mine. His work in Ghost Dog is especially good, though his role as Idi Amin is even better), Mr. Eddie Murphy (I spoke about him in What does Eddie Murphy make you think of? - 12.22.2006.1), Ms. Jennifer Hudson and all the other winners.

Now let’s see how I do for the Oscars.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Historically bad Oscar omission, great Razzie choices - 1.23.2007.1

Ok, I’m shocked. This took me completely by surprise. Whoever is on the nominating committee for the Oscar’s should be checked for drug use, in my opinion they are acting like they are on crack. Perhaps that’s too harsh but I still think the dramatic move away from tradition is severely unwarranted. Of the few historic moments in Oscar history, this is not the one most might have hoped for.

I’m speaking about the omission of Dreamgirls from the Best Picture category. I’d love to hear the justification for this. In 79 years, the total time Oscar Awards have been around, there has never been a leading nominee not also being in Best Picture. It’s more than an a snub its an insult. Perhaps those that chose felt a Golden Globe win was enough, or that Mr. Martin Scorsese has earned a win. I would hate to think it was a remnant of the ‘old boys club’ mentality.

With 8 nominations I think Dreamgirls deserves the nomination. I am not shocked with the nominations of Mr. Eddie Murphy and Ms. Jennifer Hudson. I had picked them earlier in the month to win the Screen Actors Awards and the Globes. I feel Mr. Murphy will get the win, as he has had many films over the years and most have been well liked. In addition it’s time that recognition be given to his ability, as I mentioned in December he has played more characters in a single film more times than any other actor to my knowledge. Mr. Murphy’s current portrayal is just the feather in a cap of a career filled with memorable roles.

Sadly, I don’t think Ms. Hudson will win for the same reason that Mr. Scorsese, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Forest Whitaker will win. They all have a body of work with many powerful performances behind them. Mr. Jamie Foxx has already won, deservedly for Ray, and Mr. Will Smith has been nominated before.

I will say that it is interesting to note how many deserving African American actors are getting noticed for the roles they should be noticed for, since the win by Mr. Denzel Washington. After decades of being ignored, en masse, it’s refreshing to see the change. Still I think Dreamgirls is being affected by the same thing that hit Mr. Spike Lee’s Malcolm X, it’s a subject the Academy doesn’t want to look at.

On the other side of the movie industry, there are the Razzie Awards. How they were able to whittle down the numerous losers from last year it’s hard to say. One pick I had thankfully forgotten was Little Man. Mr. Keenen Ivory Wayans is a great director, and his comedic instinct is usually on the mark. Still there is only so much that can be done with material like the stuff of that movie. Then again it was a far better film than the forgettable Basic Instinct 2.

But it was a bad year for big names overall. Many of the normally steady actors made choices I have to imagine were just for the money being offered. Mr. Robin Williams, Mr. Tim Allen, Mr. Nicolas Cage all had films that just didn’t match up to the films they usually work in. Well anyone can make a mistake from time to time. Of course the people greenlighting films like Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector, The Shaggy Dog (remake), and the multitude of needless sub-par remakes [mentioned in my recap of the worst films of 2006] get it wrong far too often. There should be Razzie’s for worst greenlight, most remakes okayed without any idea what the original was, and most likely to buy an ice cube in Alaska during a snowstorm in winter (executives and movie companies only).

This is what I think, what do you think?