Totally agree with the first part of this. You're right, to some extent that
have to market to global racial biases. Why that's the case is another more complicated question, of course, and some might say Hollywood has the chance to lead instead of follow when it comes to changing that. But if nothing else it's simply rational behavior to cast movies the way they do.
But you know what else is rational behavior? For black actors and others supportive of their cause to call them out for it publicly and repeatedly and make them look bad for doing this. That's always been part of social change dating back to lunch counter sit ins and whatnot in the 50s at least- make the alleged discriminators look bad for doing so, and therefore make it less profitable to discriminate. Studios and executives aren't the only ones who get to hide behind the "we're just doing what's in our best interests" argument.
I disagree with the second part of the argument about Tyler Perry. Sure, black people made him a near billionaire, but white people can't get enough of Adam Sandler. When someone makes a good movie with a mostly black cast,
black people (and white people) will see it. The complaint is that the studios don't do it enough.
That would be interesting and if I know actors, something that would never happen, but a truly fascinating gambit. They're almost by nature a fantastically self motivated creature across the board, thats why I would love to see the option to renounce their nominations to put their money where their mouth is. I saw Mark Ruffalo before the oscars opining that "we have a problem we need to solve". Well Ruffalo gave a pretty paint by numbers performance in Spotlight, not bad but in no way Oscar worthy. Would he have given up his seat at the table if this is a problem?
You are right about Sandler, fair comparison. But whether its through population or a market in place, there is probably a more rounded spectrum of films the current white audience will embrace.
Sandler, play virtually the same character, or Madea is a cinematic character lineage you can trace back to Chaplin. Now was Chaplin a transcendent media figure at the time, or was it simply a matter of the most people wanted to see him so he did very well in his d... well enough to co-found his own studio.
I've had dealings with Perry and he is an absolute beast of work ethic. But he also is very keenly aware of his market and demo. He is a black guy that OWNS a studio. But he also knows owning a studio is a hard thing to not make personal about vanity projects if you want to be successful.
Oprah, likewise a titan, has, if I'm counting correctly produced 4 movies in her life: Beloved, The Great Debaters, Precious and Selma. All were concieved as Oscar bait and Precious connected. In the industry, a 250 batting average in terms of nominations and wins is pretty successful. Did she or should she expect more? Not really on the merits with regard to Selma and Beloved, haven't seen the others (and i believe Beloved did get noms).
Its funny, the other audience, again pro rated, per captia, whatever you want to say, that is fiercely dedicated to the movies, is senior citizens. You can not go to an arthouse and not see a good chunk of them comprising the audience of absolutely anything. They will see ANYTHING. Based on their dedication, I would also argue that they're an underserved audience. Best Marigold Hotel did well, well enough for a sequel, but its not like we've seen a slate of senior stories being told. Now in that case, I don't think anyone argues thats bias, its understood to be business.