Q: What is this "Summit"?

Hudlin: Every fall, the Black Filmmaker Foundation gathers some of the top filmmakers, executives in film and television--blacks, Latins, Asians, maybe about 100 people--and they come together and talk for three days. And it gets very intense because there's no other forum for everyone to get together in one room close to, but away from, Hollywood. And everyone can kind of click and bond.

Lemmons: It's a very charged atmosphere, like a Renaissance weekend for minority filmmakers. I haven't missed it since they started. You come away feeling inspired.

Q: Getting back to the issue of financing, Kasi, tell me how you got Caveman's Valentine going.

Lemmons: Well, Samuel L. Jackson and Jersey Films were already attached to the project when I came on. Jersey has a track record of putting together packages of material that's difficult to sell. And because Sam and I worked together on Eve's Bayou-- and in fact he made it possible for me to make that movie in the first place--it became easier to package it.

Q: But what about selling it to financiers? I mean, we're talking about a movie whose hero is a psychotic African-American derelict who rails against unseen forces and has a sexual encounter with a white woman. Not the sort of story that attracts instant financing.

Lemmons: Well, my feeling is you never know why somebody is passing on the material, OK? At one point, we were in business with a company that we really seriously thought was going to make the movie, and then there was a changeover of personnel and they balked at the material. Which is particularly distressing.

But for the most part, people either love it or hate it, and they tell you without telling you why. Even though there are a million things they can hide behind. Like, say, African-American actors don't "sell foreign" or that this is a hero who'll rub people the wrong way or, like, who wants to see a movie about a schizophrenic homeless black man, you know? I never heard that the interracial sex rubbed people the wrong way, though I'm sure it did. It's OK, though. We did find someone to work with for whom none of these issues seemed to matter at all.

Q: Mr. Van Peebles, did you encounter resistance early on, when you were trying to make Sweetback?

Melvin Van Peebles: I didn't have to worry about anyone else because I did it all myself. I tried the studio thing. Had a three-picture deal with Columbia. But when it came to something like [Sweetback], they said, "How could I be doin' somethin' like this and dahdahdah...." Now, people are oohing and aahing about what I did. But back then, I was on my own. Did my own distribution, publicity...

And remember when the movie came out and played in one city and made all this money? People said, "Oh, that was a fluke!" Took it to the next city. Said, "Oh, that's another fluke!" Eight, ten, eleven cities, they were still saying that. It's like Jack Johnson. Couldn't, wouldn't give him an opportunity to fight for the heavyweight championship. No one thought twice about it because we know a black person could never beat a white person.

And it wasn't just dangerous on the black level. Forget the political message. What was dangerous was, here is a guy who comes along with two pieces of Scotch tape, makes himself a huge killing. I mean yes, I'm the godfather of modern black cinema. But I'm also the godfather of Blair Witch Project and all that implies, hmm?

• « Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next »

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.