Skip to main content

Danny Glover's Haiti Film Postponed

Caracas, Aug 12 (Prensa Latina)

Venezuela has postponed for 2009 the shooting of a film on Haitian independence
hero Toussaint-Louverture, which is to be directed by American actor Danny
Glover.

According to Villa del Cine chairwoman Lorena Almarza there is prejudice by US
and European producers, who have not contributed the money.

Venezuela would contribute 3.8 million dollars, which were approved by the
National Assembly.

In statements to the Bolivarian News Agency, Almarza pointed out that the
script remains unchanged, as well as production agreements in the country, with
participation of 50 percent of Venezuelan professional, technical or artistic
personnel.

The agreement says that 30 percent of the cast and 100 percent of the extras
will be Venezuelan.

Almarza added that big producers are not interested in producing a film dealing
with an anti-slavery movement.

Glover himself admitted he is having problems to raise funds, because big
producers are complaining about "Toussaint" being "a black film."

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B6D20CEEB-BE6...F607%7D)&language=EN
<small>"Follow the grain in your own wood.” ~ Howard Thurman</small>
Original Post
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Tyler Perry, and Spike Lee get their films financed all the time. Maybe Danny Glover's film just ain't very good.

bs What a remarkably inane comment! Is anyone really surprised that there is money available for portraying black folks stereotypically or as buffoons. Glover ought to be given props for trying to do something substantive.
Have you seen the film (oh I guess you haven't since it can't get made) then how do you know anything about it?? How do you know it is substantive?? You don't. You are assuming. Just as you are assuming that funding is not forthcoming because the movie is about somebody black. If there is money to be made, investors will fund the movies. It don't matter who the film is about. Like I said MAYBE Danny Glovers film ain't very good.
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Tyler Perry, and Spike Lee get their films financed all the time. Maybe Danny Glover's film just ain't very good.

bs What a remarkably inane comment! Is anyone really surprised that there is money available for portraying black folks stereotypically or as buffoons. Glover ought to be given props for trying to do something substantive.


Nuggyt, you forgot the director of Soul Plane. That movie got financed too. Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Tyler Perry, and Spike Lee get their films financed all the time. Maybe Danny Glover's film just ain't very good.

bs What a remarkably inane comment! Is anyone really surprised that there is money available for portraying black folks stereotypically or as buffoons. Glover ought to be given props for trying to do something substantive.


Nuggyt, you forgot the director of Soul Plane. That movie got financed too. Roll Eyes


Those who invested probably got paid too. Glover has over three million given to him by the Chavez govt, you mean to tell me he ain't got nothing from his Leathal Weapon days?? OR he could fiance it with credit cards like Spike Lee did back in the day. Why don't you guys raise money since you seem to be so concerned about it.
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Have you seen the film (oh I guess you haven't since it can't get made) then how do you know anything about it?? How do you know it is substantive?? You don't. You are assuming. Just as you are assuming that funding is not forthcoming because the movie is about somebody black. If there is money to be made, investors will fund the movies. It don't matter who the film is about. Like I said MAYBE Danny Glovers film ain't very good.




Nuggyt, your compulsion is showing again... munch
What ever compulsion I may have does not change the fact that Danny Glover's film may not be very good. It surely is not marketable. The guys has 4 million in pocket right not, if he can't get it done, then it don't need to be done. You guys crack me. You climb on your soap boxes over every little thing. Yet you neglet to look at a little thing called reality.
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by nuggyt:
Tyler Perry, and Spike Lee get their films financed all the time. Maybe Danny Glover's film just ain't very good.

bs What a remarkably inane comment! Is anyone really surprised that there is money available for portraying black folks stereotypically or as buffoons. Glover ought to be given props for trying to do something substantive.


Nuggyt, you forgot the director of Soul Plane. That movie got financed too. Roll Eyes


Those who invested probably got paid too. Glover has over three million given to him by the Chavez govt, you mean to tell me he ain't got nothing from his Leathal Weapon days?? OR he could fiance it with credit cards like Spike Lee did back in the day. Why don't you guys raise money since you seem to be so concerned about it.
Look, I'm just trying to help you make your point. You mentioned Tyler Perry, I figured you'd appreciate me helping you out by also mentioning Soul Plane. After all, if Soul Plane and Medea could get financing, then why can't a historical piece about Toussaint L'Ouverture get financing? lol

Surely, it must be that the industry only finances high quality movies like Soul Plane & Medea.
Yeah, the "maybe it's not good enough" excuse does seem pretty 18 to me, too.

I would think there are more compelling reasons such as that Venezuela is so heavily involved in it. Chavez is a 4-letter word in this country. Roll Eyes Anything that might support him and/or his economy is probably instant *blackball* in that industry.

Also, the fact there's no real American slant/connection to it could be a real problem. And the fact that Haiti is like a thorn in the American side for the way this country has treated it ... the U.S. should be, but is too morally bankrupt to feel bad about what it has done to them.

Plus a story where 'Black people finish first/White people finish last' would definitely make it unpopular to those in the film industry with money.

Whether the film is good or not pales in comparison to the fact that it is a history that needs to be told. Box office flops happen all the time. Showing Black people resisting oppression doesn't happen nearly enough for my tastes.
It has less to do with the character being 'Black' than with the subject matter. An oppressed people successfully having a revolution against their colonial oppressors. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why Hollyweird(a.k.a government propoganda) wouldn't want such a subject hilighted... All one has to do is be up on current events.

Therefore nuggyt, you are an idiot.
I guess you done told me!!! It has to do with the fact that this cat, Danny Glover, who has been in Hollywood for 30 years can't get the job done. He has 4 million in pocket, but he was stupid enough to tie himself down to to many conditions to get the money. Also take into account that this is his first time trying to direct a film about a subject that people don't know about. All that adds up to no money coming in. Producers produce films to make money. Why would they throw money at this when it ain't gonna make money?? Again, why don't AA.org raise some money if it is so important???
Glover might have to compromise and rewrite the script (embellish history, a little).

Perhaps include a white abolitionist lawyer. Somebody like Sir Anthony Hopkins would be good! Include a dramatic court scene in which the rebellious leader and company are brought before the highest court in the land. It seems like they are doomed to die for their murderous rampage. Hopkins's character makes an impassioned and eloquent plea for their freedom. He is successful! And the shackles of bondage are no more!

Oh, crap. That was "Amistad." Nevermind.

But, you know it needs a white hero. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by Santana St. Cloud:
Glover might have to compromise and rewrite the script (embellish history, a little).

Perhaps include a white abolitionist lawyer. Somebody like Sir Anthony Hopkins would be good! Include a dramatic court scene in which the rebellious leader and company are brought before the highest court in the land. It seems like they are doomed to die for their murderous rampage. Hopkins's character makes an impassioned and eloquent plea for their freedom. He is successful! And the shackles of bondage are no more!

Oh, crap. That was "Amistad." Nevermind.

But, you know it needs a white hero. Wink


appl 20

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×