Search the Community

If You Were My Girl Friend - Again? Jack & Jill ran up the hill to get a marriage license/ They found bliss and shared a kiss/ and that's the end of the story. Wouldn't that be great? Through the storms of adultery, physical and mental abuse, uncommon interests, gambling, selfishness, alcoholism, deceit, sloth and boredom, wouldn't it be great if we all could be like Petunia (Ethel Waters) & Little Joe. Yes sir, Little Joe was a gambling womanizer but Petunia still loved her Little Joe. The devil tried to take Little Joe, but eventually they were hand in hand, walking to the Cabin In The Sky. That was a great movie - wasn't it. But what about now? Now I am at a place of wonderment. I found myself here after reading a post by Tha L. http://rippdemup.blogspot.com/2009/11/guest-blogger-put-haterade-downiced-tea.html Her post was eerily similar to mine. http://rippdemup.blogspot.com/2009/10/guest-blogger-why-are-you-speaking-so.html Those posts were basically saying the same thing... "Clean up your side of the street". Personally, I wonder what that means to me and to others. Well, I know what it means to me because I wrote the post. Let me say this, I have several flaws - okay. When I think about those flaws, I wonder why my love life has not been that bad. Now, don't take this as a vane attempt to stroke myself or to stratify myself above the common man, but I've never lost at love. Nope, I've never had a woman leave me and I am still cool with every woman that I've had a serious relationship with. "Then why was there separation, CareyCarey?" . Well, before I went to jail for a serious crime, I was involved with a woman. She was cool, but I was not. I mean, I was in the grips of an addiction when I met her. While I was riding that storm, she was the one for me. She didn't even know I had an addiction, but I did. While I was incarcerated, she supported me. When I got out, she supported me. She bought my clothe and gave me transportation. Yet, when I removed myself from that storm, she wasn't the one for me. Without being specific, she wasn't the one for me when I decided to start over. To this day we are cool, but I doubt we could ever be lovers again. Earlier in my life, while I was in a committed relationship, I had an affair with another woman. In that relationship a child was born. This woman and I were tight, it's safe to say we were in love. However, again, without being totally specific, I had to leave that relationship because I had a family and a woman waiting for me back home. I am still cool with that past lover. I hurt her, yet we remain friends. I was married. I am now a widower. My present relationship is strong. Having said all of that and admitting I have numerous character flaws, I sometimes wonder why the women have stayed around and/or continue to allow me to be their friend. But here is were I am at today. I have a few boundaries. I mean, there are a few things I do not compromise in my search for a woman that I want to call mine. Again, this is not about me but I am going somewhere. I have a pet peeve that many would call ridiculous. It may not be a deal breakers but it would be a serious impediment to a lasting relation - for me. See, I brush my teeth about 10 times a day. I not only brush my teeth but I wash my mouth. Simply brushing ones teeth can be akin to washing ones feet and not getting between the toes or not putting them in water for any significant period of time. Anyway, for me, a woman has to have very clean teeth and their breathe has to remain pleasant. Okay, I know some may think that shouldn't be a reason to fight love. But, for "me" it is. Yeah, ridiculous.... I know. But if I can go back to the posts of Tha L, and mine, err'body was talking/complaining about the other person. Well, what about the other person - you? What if you could go back and be that girlfriend, boyfriend, husband or wife again, what are some of the things you would change about yourself? I mean, it's not always the other person's fault that a relationship did not last. Are there a few idiosyncrasies or outlandish requirements that you have, that might have put a wedge in your love life. More so, are there a few serious character flaws of your own that you've now discovered that you must give serious attention? Isn't it important that we check ourselves before we.... No, it wasn't the suit, it was me. No, it wasn't the woman, it was me, I was fu*ked up. Was it you? What was it about you that you've now come to believe must change. If you can't say it, you can't do it. If you can't find it, you can't fix it. If you could go back, what would you change about yourself?! A.Smith said... Oh gosh Carey. I would change SO much. I remember when things went down the toilet with me and my ex and he was trying to salvage anything he could, he asked me if I would remember anything good about our relationship and I told him no. I regret doing that everyday -- but for reasons I'll share at another time -- though anyone who reads my blog can probably guess why.Anywho, I said "no" more because I felt like it was all his fault than anything else. Since that time I've become aware of how narrow-sighted and selfish that was. I was not perfect, I was horribly imperfect and I get that -- very important lesson I had to learn, for sure. CareyCarey said... Hi A. Smith, You don't know how much I appreciate your comments. I see you are going into social work (I think). To some degree, that is what I do. Well, I deal with people going through a major storm. Through this journey, I've learned valuable information about myself. In order for me to feel comfortable about telling others how to change, I have to walk the talk. You, my lady, have a gift that many will never achieve. You have the courage to admit to your faults AND voice them. What leaves the heart will find another. I believe you are heading in the right direction.Yes, it's frequently not about the other person. Selfishness is a mean thang. Thanks for stopping by. Solomon said... Nobody is perfect. There are always things we would do differently if we could do it all over again. In my last relationship there are quite a few things I would change if I could do it all over again. For one thing I would call more in the beginning of the relationship instead of treating it like a booty call early on. Then I would be more open about what I wanted in the relationship. I don't think I was very good at talking about my needs, especially at first. Then there is my character flaw of me not being able to tell somebody how I feel about them. Well, I think I was so damaged I really didn't know how I felt but at least I could have tried right! I also know that in my past relationships I wasn't always emotionally available. No matter how hard I tried I couldn't get to that point of emotional attachment, at least for a while anyway. Then there are the "warning signs" that I was always good at ignoring. If I was serious about the relationship I should have went with my gut and not ignored the signs. As with anyone I can be selfish when it comes to things I expect in a relationship. Nobody is perfect and I'd say I'm far from it. Sometimes I didn't listen to her needs when making decisions and I realize now that I was being selfish. I think I would be in a much better place to be in a relationship now after working on these issues. My last relationship was hard because I felt so damaged from all the drama of my previous relationships. You can only move forward right! Hopefully from here on out things will work out better and I won't be so damn selfish! uglyblackjohn said... Whaaaaat? Man, I can only give my nephews and young cousins advice on what NOT to do when it comes to women.I get some really great women but I always seem to eff it up. FreeMan said... Why do I feel I'm at a Catholic confessional? I lived in Philly and I met the one! I salsa danced with her on Thursday and she was down to earth and understood money so we ate out occasionally and spent most times chilling at my house. Then I got accepted to Law School and I was so short sighted and she understood how big of a break it was for me that we parted ways. I look back all the time thinking I should've fought harder but I accepted my fate. I was so used to leaving everything behind in order to get on top that I thought shit this is one more of those times. I don't have many regrets but she's ONE! Life picked up so fast after that I never caught up with her and haven't found her again after some searching! I've been fighting so long to right the ship of my life and circumstances that I sacrificed a good part of my life in the process. CareyCarey said... Freeman my son, god be with you:-). Man, but don't you feel better now? But really, I believe there's something special in admitting we may have been wrong. Selfishness is one of the core issues of breakups. @ Uncle Black, man now come on. You can do better than that. Even MadMoney Freeman dropped a tear. You could have at least told us a piece of your ish. There may be a young man reading this and they could learn from your evil ways *lol* @ solomon, tell me Solomon, how's your present love life? It seems like you have a few answers. BigmacInPittsburgh said... Well if you aren't honest about why a rlationship didn't work then you are dume to repeat the mistake. I really have not dug deep enough I believe I keep getting hooked up with the wrong woman. My big problem is the cookie box,I get hooked and ignor the warning signs. CareyCarey said... @ Big Mac with extra cheese. See, I'm noticing a pattern and you said it. Ms. A.Smith showed us her's and I'd hope the guys would follow suit. But oh no, the men came up in here talking about money and booty. *lol*I mean, didn't yawl notice how Ms Smith said she was horribly imperfect. She went deep. But lord have mercy, the brothas couldn't dig past their Johnson and their billfolds. Dang, you guys have reduced us to tricks and sugardaddy's. You guys have no excuses either. @ your blogs, you guys go deep. But on this subject, you guys didn't dig deep, you took a short cut - to the tail end. I am so disappointed in my brothas :-) Mizrepresent said... I would have kicked him to the curb the first time he cheated instead of giving him another 10 years of my time. What would i change about myself...i would have been more up front about my needs and desires, and i wouldn't have taken a backseat to my dreams so that he could live his. I could have loved him more, if i hadn't stopped liking him. BigmacInPittsburgh said... GUILTY,GIVE ME TWENTY JUDGE CAREY!Its a good thing when we can check each other. CareyCarey said... LOL @ Big Mac. Yes, it's a good thang that men can say what needs to be said and not get offended.Since you threw yourself on the mercy of the court, I'm only going to sentence you to church :-). But you're on probation. Speaking of probation, I have a woman that's coming into my court. Hello Miz, the jury is out on you. See, you soft soaped yours. Just like some of the men, you only pulled the change out of your pocket. I mean, did you ever get in a realationship for all the wrong reasons? More so, can any of the fault of a breakup rest at your feet. Now I don't want to hear about your lack of voicing your needs. I want to hear about your screw-ups. Maybe you don't have any faults but.. Like you told me, I know you (somewhat) so tell us whats really on your mind. Hey, you kicked him out after 10 years but did love have anything to do with it? FreeMan said... @Carey - Yeah I'm alright I'm just putting it out there for this post!"Freeman my son, god be with you" LMBAO - man I didn't drop a tear I'm just saying for all that I have won in life I still lost on my way.MADAMAN FreeMan whuh? LOL uglyblackjohn said... @ Carey - Okay, which one?- The one I sent to England for a semester at college so I could have more time to cheat on her only to have her meet the guy she would marry.- The one who was my dream girl, but I had to get that last piece (from a girl I'd wanted to hit for a month) before settling for "The One" only to get caught because I gave her (the dream girl) the clap?- The one that was perfect in every way except she was only 5'6' (below my minimum 5'7" height minimum)? I was an ass to women - even the ones I truly loved. I had always assumed that it was always about me - but when the women would agree with that, I would get bored with them and try to find another conquest.So you see... three quick examples of "What NOT to do". CareyCarey said... Okay Uncle Black, when got to the part about the claps, I was done *lol* Yes sir, it seems like you could write a book about F'in up. You've been a bad boy.*** okay boys and girls, don't do as Uncle Black does, do as he says... I think *** Tha L said... I like this Carey. Good lookin' out on reiterating the message so eloquently LOL! Now, what would I change about myself if I could go back? Hmm...although I don't believe in going back, I know it's so important to learn from the past. For the short time that I was married almost ten years ago, I was extremely bossy, selfish, and a huge clean freak. If I were to ever get married again, I would definitely have to continue working on those things. But honestly, I enjoy living alone too much, so that marriage thing may not be for me :-) CareyCarey said... *lol* @ Tha L, yeah reference your "eloquence" I had to come with a different flavor in this post. I tried not to talk all nasty and stupid :-) I agree, sometimes going back is not the thang to do. But again, as you said, we should never forget the past. You know what, I've always lived with a clean freak and I love it. My mother was a domestic (cleaned white folks houses). My wife had a cleaning business. If I was reading the newspaper and walked away from it, she would fold it up and put it away. My present lady is the same way. If I sit still to long, she'd start polishing my forehead. So maybe it's a match made in heaven. I make the mess and then they are free to do their thang. Someone needs you Tha L *lol* Anonymous said... Carey, the thing I would most change is to be like you: more ready to recognise that I do have so many flaws. CareyCarey said... Thank you anonymous (I believe I know who you are). I think you also replied to the "reunion" post. I had to change or I would forever repeat my past. More so, I had to realize it wasn't about me. I have children that depend on me. Not financially, but as a way to overcome failures. It's been a process. I have not arrived but I truely believe I am working on chnaging, which require me to go deep.

"You Carey, like many people you confuse criticism with hate. In fact people who critique the president are probably better supporters because they are interested in him doing better -- as opposed blind or apathetic support." Please Troy, that silly retort has never held any weight. You're basically saying, those of us that do not voice unsubstantiated shallow opinions, and vent gripes and moans, sticks and stones, porous opinions and bitches and switches - at President Obama - are blind followers? Surely you see how ridiculous that is? And, I am still waiting for someone to define "Hero worshippers". I don't believe there is a truly "thinking" man or woman who could legitimately claim or believe the request to "watch the motive of others" regarding the public flogging of a President can compare to what some would call "hero worship", and/or compare the request to the blind devotion some folks have demonstrated in regards to Kwame Kilpatrick and Marion Berry. Troy, now lets talk about something that's real. Do you really think you are making him accountable by mimicking the words of his arch rivals?! I mean, really? Do you think you're making him accountable by sitting in a remote site, with a bunch of negros that acquired their political science degrees on-line - or off the 10 o'clock news? I mean, what's accomplished by listening to rants, half-baked solutions, haters and naysayers - huh? Surely that's not making him accountable. That's nothing more than a game of spades or dominoes. Any negro can sit around a table and talk trash. I mean, helping him and supporting him??? Tell me, tell me exactly how you're doing that? I mean, considering the un-focused willy-nilly rhetoric that's the final product of most "side-walk" discussions, I find it hard to believe - you believe - it's the best way to "support" him. accountable. Really! Would your words move people toward Obama or move them away from him? Really, I believe you and YOUR ilk have "criticism" confused. Not those of us that do not think it's wise to vent and spit on the president, with no defined reason to do so. I mean, really, what's your purpose? "Carey, it's just our opinion" Oh, is that what it is? If it’s “JUST” yo opinion; implying that you don’t have to support it, or it’s not to be taken seriously, then why say it at all?

After suffering a tragic loss, Mia Davis looks towards her future, to move on from a heartbreaking past. Will new life, love and laughter help her to find her way, or will death, deceit, and disloyalty overcome her. Can she trust those close to her? Can they trust her? It's often said that, “Whatever doesn't kill us only makes us stronger.” This may be true individually, but is this true in relationships? Does “no matter what” really mean just that?

Shout out to Micheal Vick. What you fans don't know is that on an organization level Philly got all of y'all thinking that they wanted Kolb as the starter. When in reality, it was silent motivation for Mike to reclaim his spot in the NFL as a starter an human hilight film as the signal caller. Since being dropped like a bad habit by Atlanta, the man has gone through hell only few can ever even attempt to imagine. Lost over 100 million dollar in salary in the blink of a eye, public humiliation and even did a stint in the bing and worked construction afte getting released. Damn, Virginia is hurting boy. First, AI then Vick, then Charlie Brown went crazy (Chris Brown)...but thanks to Trey Songz, Virginia is not looking that bad these days. Hold up, this is about Vick, though. The man not the football player (well both actually) had to do some growing up. At 30 years old. And, he's far from alone in this world. Andy Reid you know is his current coach and a little more understandng of the man's situation having two sons who ran afoul of the law and dealt with that as a coach in charge of running a tight ship for Jeffrey Lurie's team. Well, he realized no matter how you raise yor children sometimes it just doesn't work. Reid is a devout Mormon. Vick and his even more troubled brother Marcus grew up Protestant in grimy ass Newport News. Same place AI from. Somehow they made it out and on to millions, playing a game they played for free as young'uns. Then, found ways to conviniently fuck it up. Whether it was them directly or in connection with others. I know what these gentleman mean to their community. Vick given a second chance in a world that wanted him burned at the stake like a slave in the 1800s, has made great strides as a man first, leader and quarterback in general. He relied on talent before his fall, now he relies on the lessons he learned under McNabb and Reid during those practices and two-a-days during the offseason. He signed for a hell of lot less than he was worth once before. But, the opportunity was worth a billion if you know the situation he was truly up against. Vick had to see how they played him. Kolb start over me? Reid is daring me to take this spot. Heck, people have to be looking at me like I'm either going to do that or be finished for good as a occasional sub for the wildcat offense package the Iggles (yes Iggles) run. He's faster again than anyone on the field. He decision making has caught up to his wheels. He knows to take the checkdown if his progression yields no potential YAC and a completion. Progress was made as a professional! It's okay. Come back next down and give yourself a chance and your teammates an opportunity to make a play for you. I'm proud of the man and I'm not even an Eagles fan. Growing up is a tough thing for many to do even with priviledge far out of sight the average person can enjoy in this world. Next test: Take down Washington and the past, Donovan, to signal it's a new sheriff shutting it down. Now, if you think both QBs ain't thinking about both outcomes and what it will say about Philadelphia's decision to let their franchise leader walk to a division rival, you don't know football. Sure Vick is 30, but if he can maintain his progress for the next few seasons, he will have justified the move they made to pick him up out the muck and mire to say, "Here's your shot, don't fuck it up...again." Part of me want's to play devil's advocate here and say that they absolutely would not be loving Mike if Philly was a losing squad. But, that's the beauty of the whole thing. Just two short years ago here this same man was a convict in prison, where most hardly return to even a marginal type of opportunity, let alone stage to showcase whatever abilities a ex-con may have, but he was given a shot and certainly has not let anyone down thus far. I'm praying that this brother continues to excel on the field as well as off and in the community that has for the love of the pigskin embraced him and allowed for a safe transition back into mainstream society as a productive citizen. Thank God for Tony Dungy. Thank God for people who helped him get back into shape, even ex-teammate Donovan McNabb who put his ego aside to lead the cheers to sign him. They took the time to see that he was a human being who made mistakes, but also didn't want to throw his life away or wallow in self-pity for losing the record-breaking contract or endorsements. I also would challenge America to look further into this circumstance by observing what someone can do if we as a country invest something into the lives of people who we cast away and lock up but do their time and come back to the world just seeking to move on and get better as people once released. Is that rehabilitating them or sweeping our problems under the rug? Far too often because of a lack of publicity or a big corporation like the NFL to help out, people come back to little or nothing and are tasked with the impossible for some who have never been behind such institutions. I would love to hear anyone else's thoughts on Michael, his circumstance or even friends or possibly family members who may have dealt with the same lot in life. R. D. Turner

By now the crowd of people slamming Tyler Perry’s movies and television programs as minstrel shows could fill a large theater. One critic of his film version of FOR COLORED GIRLS called him ‘the king of coonery’. These people are, of course, wrong. Historically, minstrel shows flourished from the mid 19th century through the early 20th century. They were, for the most part, the products of white showmen using white performers in black face and were directed, overwhelmingly, at white audiences. Their function was to justify cradle to grave segregation, sanctified in law and enforced by violence, by presenting blacks as shiftless dimwits and vulgar brutes, properly kept on society’s margins because they were incapable of meeting the simplest demands of responsible citizenship. Similarly, Stepin Fetchit, Willie Best, and Mantan Moreland’s simple-minded, lazy‘coons’ of Hollywood films of the 1930's and 40's were directed primarily at white audiences. Perry’s audience is black. His performers are black, and he is black. Given his core audience of working class, church going blacks, his shows, obviously, do not serve as a cover or justification for segregation, nor are people paying good money to see themselves mocked. No one, black or white, has to like Perry, but enough already! He’s not putting on minstrel shows. As is indicated in my recent book FACES IN THE MIRROR: OSCAR MICHEAUX AND SPIKE LEE, there were black minstrels like Williams and Walker, who performed in black face. But they played before white audiences, thereby tragically compromising with and reinforcing the racism that denied them and other black performers the opportunity to show who they really were. By contrast, some of Perry’s films have provided a number of black artists (Kimberly Elise, Kerry Washington, Loretta Devine) with the opportunity to display the full range of their talents. Perry is not beyond criticism, but the criticism ought to bear some relation to reality. Whatever his faults he is not a modern minstrel show impresario. JohnH

lol I agree with that. He DOES need love from that demographic even if at this time he chooses to focus on black females. My only point in my post was basically screaming that. So, forget about the Spike comparison and all of that and boil it down to just a lack of balance in his film which we all know he has the creativity and ability to direct that on a film and showcase it to the world. Black males need positive portrayals too. If our own directors such as Tyler refuse to, can anyone say Oliver Stone is going to give us a shot to be that in one of his films? I think not. So, forget about his lack of responsibility for our race, that's obvious it's too complex and broad for his shoulders alone to bear. But, god damn Tyler can we just get more positive roles. That's all I'm saying. I could intellectualize my response on this but for what? The simplicity is saying everything that needs to be said. We can't live in the past, we live in an age where civil rights leaders of long ago like Bobby Seale or Dr. King couldn't even in their greatest days do what Obama did this year, because they didn't live in a time where our country wanted that kind of leadership from us. Which is said to say, this is what I mean. We can create the image and really live up to them now. Goes both ways really, when you look at the lack of steady employment in our economy room for upward mobility as was stated earlier by one of you and people get tired of shuffling their feet, shucking and jivin' while Kobe is getting his and Lil Wayne is raping the market musically. We need more doctors, lawyers, entrepenuers. I see very few movies that show a black man as a lawyer. We have off the top of my head two I can think of, Denzel in Philadelphia and Will in Enemy of The State which to me was a brilliant performance. Now, obviously those are just movies. But, if I was a young black male watching even the possiblity on screen, back when everything is still idealistic for us before we run into the all-encompassing reality of social competition, it may persuade that young man to want to be like Will and not Mike all the time. We have 10s of thousands who have hoop dreams because if they watch on TNT a game, that's all they see is us. When the reality hits them that it's not easy to covet and land a actual starting or even bench role on an NBA roster (400 est.) that's when it becomes apparent about how we often unconsciously miseducate one another as Carter G. Woodson wrote about and Lauryn depicted in her classical debut. But, then we may wheel around and simply blame parents for what they're kids do or don't do. Who knew it was that easy? R. D. Turner

You always opt to "turn a phrase" rather than speak the truth, Chrishayden. How can you, as a baby boomer who grew up during the 1950s and 60s say that during these years black folks were all "happy go lucky, water melon loving, chicken stealing coons"? Is this what you were doing while you were attending a Big-10 university? Is this what the upwardly mobile Blacks were engaging in while launching the civil rights movement? This was, after all, the era when black men stepped up and became the leaders of the civil rights movement and all of its militant spin-offs. What seems to be forgetten about this time when black men flexed their manhood was what a back seat black women had to take, often relegated to being go-fers expected to do menial tasks and be willing bed mates. Circumstances have shaped black women into being the ball-busters they have gradually become. They wish they didn't find themselves empathizing with the female characters in Tyler Perry movies. But somewhere along the way, things went astray. Who is to blame for the bad rap black men get? Tyler Perry? Not solely. There is enough blame to go around. Love-starved baby mamas who give birth to male children that grow up into irresponsible clones of the fathers who have moved on from them and their mothers. Professional executives, sports figures, and entertainers who prefer white trophy wives to women of their own race. Instituionalized racism that trips up those not shrewd enough to circumvent it. An educational system that produces young boys ill-equipped to compete in the real world. Court systems that enable the prison industry whose main product is young black males. This is the setting in which the rift between black men and black women is played out, an exercise in conflict that casts black men in a bad light. What is the solution? Don't ask me. The only people who can rehabilitate the image of black men is - black men. If Tyler Perry was smart, he would expand his repetoir and take advantage of his captive audience by producing films with upstanding black heroes as his protagonists. A good trade-off. Black men would love him for this, and if it's anything Tyler obviously needs, it's love from black men...

We reap what we sow. Let me tell you a few things about Mr. Perry's artistry. I read an article on this man in Oprah magazine recently and came away impressed with him as a director, but after seeing his recent movie I had this question...why does Mr. Perry insist on depicting black males one sided in a negative light most of the time? Hold on y'all, I'm going somewhere with this... Now, I've been a fan of Tyler ever since the very first play that I saw. I can see why Spike Lee was pissed off in the press and had harsh words for him. At first, I thought Spike may have been suffering from the same disease that Lil' Kim is suffering from now in light of Nicki Minaj's emergence as a threat in that game to be highly successful and bury Kim in the past. We know Spike was a legend in his sport with his movies such as School Daze, Do The Right Thing, Malcolm X, etc. But, keeping it real Tyler's the main man in black Hollywood now and Spike is a person who has already been there done that and made a helluva lot of money, too. With that said, Spike also never had to shoot black men in the majority of his films the way Tyler has chosen to shoot them in his films to shine and tell an accurate and entertaining story to his audiences. It begs us male viewers to ask, "Tyler, where's the love?" Russell Crowe broke his wife out of jail. Josh Duhamel was an accidental, but responsible father in his movie. How come all of the black men in most films just beat the same rug of a stereotype? With no recourse of showing males HOW to cope with rough circumstances to overcome. Oh, but excuse me that may not fill the seats in the theater and scorch the box office. Forgive me for my modest ambitions, but allow me to continue. We have listened to women in the R&B world such as legendary Mary J. Blige and her understudy Keyshia Cole rise to fame doing the same thing as far as content to sell to commercial public. The crooning songs of women who live out those songs of pain and heartbreak and tragedy in their real lives that these artists turn around and make platinum records out of and are regarded as heroes to those particular women do it for two reasons: 1. It's profitable 2. There will always be a base of women who will go through the things that make those songs relative to begin with. Sad, but true. Fellas who may hate to hear Jazmin Sullivan sing about "Bustin' The Windows" out your car know they need to step their games up or simply stay away from women if they can't handle the responsibility that comes with dealing with a black woman in whatever day and age. Thank God on the cover of this week's Jet magazine the caption under Mrs. Cole's name with her gracing the cover says that she's moved on past the drama, pain and appreciatively for us men the melodic male-bashing. I feel bad for some dudes and fathers who never get anywhere near as much praise as we do ridicule, and how white males are seen as those responsible leading characters in their race and society in general. We look like rapists, deadbeat dads and so on. Only to be reinforced in every film, song, television sitcom that comes out nowadays to fix a certain perception on to a society that already sees black males as incompetent, incapable and incorrigible individuals, no matter how well raised on first impression unless he looks like a poindexter. Mr. Perry has done this over the course of his catalogue thus far with a few roles and characters in his plays and films that actually do right sometime or at the end of the production. So, it's not a complete negative campaign. However, unless he finds a way in his next few films to spin this perception in the opposite direction, I as a black man cannot honestly say that I am willing to continue my support of his work. Flat out. That's right, I will not be going to ANY PLAY, MOVIE OR WATCH ANY SHOW that this nonsense goes on in. I do understand the context of being objective and having our faults being shown and have no problem with that if there's a balance. But, a lack of one is either a hidden agenda (he was mistreated and abused by males in his past) with venegance on his mind using his work to exercise demons he has behind a cloak of humility and religious frontin' or a lack of creativity which I can't buy because we know how talented he is. He is also bold enough to take chances with his talents as Eddie Murphy has in his career by playing a woman with his Madea character. So, it isn't that. I think about if I had a son and how the same society that sees us depicted like this will be ultimately judging and treating my son from stereotypes that they viewed in a movie which is fictional, but people as you know often times sees it in a real light for whatever reason. Probably, because if the story is told a certain way on a brilliant level it simply shapes reality for us. We believe what we see, perception becomes reality. If you attempt to attribute all of this to mere business reasons, once again I remind you that Spike Lee never had to go this route to win in Hollywood and have not only black America support his work, but also white Americans and otherwise. He blended Latinos (Rosie Perez), Asians and Indians in lesser or supportive roles, but kept the focus on telling our story in a variety of ways and uses of colorful and entertaining characters many times in a positive or neutral instance. He turned Denzel into a icon basically as he was well on his way, but his depiction of Malcolm in X was so great and the way Spike laid it all out over 3 hours was poetic brilliance. We found our James Baldwin of film in that movie and Warner Bros. put Spike and the cast through hell to finance the project. Now, he came out of NYU and went indie from the jump with "She's Gotta Have It," but Tyler had to fight through a lack of notoriety and being homeless and his plays failing several times before hitting it off. So, I can dig the drive it took to overcome and prevail in that sport. He's a competitor, but come on Tyler. You have us looking like niggers (black men) in your movies and only again reinforces us as villians, threats and bad guys while other races don't nearly shoot their men in the same light ALL the time or even MOST of the time. You can make a million For Colored Girls. Look at society out here. We have people walking in front of school boards with pistols and firing live rounds. The problem is that if the social conditions of a people continue to exist untethered and changed for the better of its citizens, being that we are imperfect to begin with and fallible throughout the course of us executing our life's fate, how can people who claim this will do any good for people in general to view this, when all it does it simply reinforce to viewers a type of way that stresses of life are resolved? I make no excuse for violent offenders in relationships or deadbeat dads and Tyler clearly does articulate cinematically that the man was suffering from post traumatic syndrome from being in the military (Ealy's character) long before we watch his alcohol addiction lead him to drop his children out of a window. I just think that it's not necessarily Tyler's sole responsibility to reshape our behavior socially, yet he does not escape accountability for the perception his films surely do incite and challenge us as supporters of his work to distinguish and discern its content. A 17 year old may or may not see all the trees through the forest and look at those scenes for what it offers visually and be satisfied with that to look no further or deeper than the surface. A 40 year old may be jaded to the underlying message that it invokes and simply be apathetical to what those male characters were reaching for in potraying such savagery. R. D. Turner

Well, since this is a slow day, I am looking for Thumper because it's Oscar time. You know, that man that knows everything about books a movies..., has anyone seen him." Tell him to give me a holla. I'm the guy in the video... and the one that follows it. HERE http://www.youtube.c...DAeNxu8&index=1

No, Chrishayden, my son played Juror #3, who was a "fence straddler." My son also reminded me that there were 2 movie versions of "12 Angry Men" made AFTER this work first appeared on TV's "Studio One" and then on the stage. The first film featured Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb in the leading roles. The remake of this movie starred Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott. Also where some confusion might be stemming from, is that after many stage plays have been made into movies, they often re-open on the stage again after the movie has come out. There is, in fact, a "Tony" awarded to the best revival of a Broadway production.

OK, Troy, I checked just to make sure about "12 Angry Men" and you can click on the link below and see what you think. wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Angry_Men_(Westinghouse Back in the day when TV was just coming on the scene and movies were feeling their growing pains, things were a tad different than they are now. And I don't know why we are bickering about this one point, babe. I guess because for some reason you zeroed in on my passing remark about movies not being made into plays. Instead of being stuck in this rut, why don't you go further and tell me why proving to me that movies have been made into plays is important to the point you are arguing about Tyler Perry turning FCG into a movie, and about how you think the theater and movies are equally artistic? I explained where I was coming from when I made this remark. Do you feel that movies being made into plays substantiates your argument??? And if I misinterpreted your eloquent lament about the sorry state of affairs visa-vis black culture, excuuuuuse me. I don't recall your ever defending the way badly-written, and poorly-edited street lit is usurping quality black fiction. But - what do I know? I guess as long as there is an audience who is willing to buy such books, this earns your thumbs up. Who are we to judge? Whatever. Gotta go. Don't eat too much turkey. LOL

Oh,stfu, Carey. To my "nephew" Troy, my son appeared in his high school’s production of “12 Angry Men”, a work which was adapted from a “teleplay” which was made into a movie and subsequently reproduced on Broadway in its original form as a stage play. I remember when TV first came out, the HallMark and DuPont networks used to stage plays and simply televise them. Their format was not that of a movie so they were called “teleplays”. Several of these outstanding productions were later performed on Broadway. So TV introduces a whole new facet to this argument. As for 39 Steps, it was a COMEDY. In any case, my motive in posing this convoluted question was to point out how producers and directors rarely bothered with turning movies into plays because doing so would take away from the whole visual concept of movies. Yet Hollywood always wants to bloat plays into movies in order to make money. Dating as far back as Greeks and later Shakespeare, there has always been a distinction between what was aesthetic and what would appeal to the “hoi poloi”. There was the genre known as “low” comedy, and it was forerunner of burlesque and vaudeville and screwball humor. Its opposite, as represented by the famous mask of tragedy, was serious drama, which is more attuned to the intellectual sensibilities rather than the funny bone. In any case, nowadays, you can believe that if a movie leaves too much to the imagination, it will not be popular, whereas this would not be as much of a problem to theater patrons. As for “The Godfather”, I don’t think anybody disputes that turning this book into a movie was a great cinematic achievement. This picture is a classic gangster film. But everything that is classic is not necessarily artistic. There are films so bad that they are “classic”. Obviously the reason why it was made into a movie instead of a play was because, a play couldn’t do it justice, which is at the gist of my argument. What’s good for one media is not necessary good for another! And the bottom line is if we don’t have standards, then quality is lost. Tyler Perry dumbed down FCG, because he knew the average person wouldn't appreciate the play in its original form. He was criticized for this by those who don't subscribe to this school of thought. There you have it. BTW, Troy, I assumed you deplored street lit by what you said to John H, on another thread which was: "I truly believe that the level of education and literacy has adversely impacted on not only our ability to produce great work but our ability to consume or even recognize it." You went on to say that "Tyler's success is a symptom of a larger problem"... You are, of course, entitled to your "revised" opinion about whether street lit in all of its formulaic semi-literate glory is on a par with mainstream and literary fiction and that FCG is a generic work of art. And others are entitled to disagree.

Well, Troy, you keep citing musicals and comedies and I have focused on drama which is what FCG is, and I seriously doubt whether out-of- town yokels and their ill-behaved children flocked to see this play when it was on Broadway. Drama is serious artistic stuff and when this turf is invaded by the atypical audience Puffy attracted, it proves that this fare is not for "public consumption". Yes, there are serious movies which earn rave reviews, but they are measured by a different yardstick than a live play. Apples and oranges... As for making a commercial film into an artistic one, you can't be true to your craft when you are catering to a mass audience whose business you are seeking. Not only would this be difficult, it's counter-productive. And, of course any play can be expanded into a movie and any movie can be reduced to a play but at what cost? When a camera comes between the actor and the audience, then the whole vibe is changed and the finished product is diluted. I repeat: This is what offends purists. Since you are less discriminating than a purist, Troy, then you can't be swayed. Or will you be impressed with how every movie star aspires to cap their career by appearing on the legitimate stage epitomized by Broadway. So be it. And in light of your desire to give the screen and the stage the same props, maybe you should re-think your objection to street lit enjoying more acclaim than quality fiction. How about giving the hack writers an "E" for effort. LOL

Cynique Broadway plays have been adapted from every concieveable source: Here is another example; Mel Brooks' The Producers was a film that was converted into a Broadway musical. You are just going to have to conceed this point. Also, I agree with you motion picture are two different things. But again, I don't hold one over the other. They are just different forms of art and when done well both can be equally compelling. Cynique maybe you have not been to a Broadway play recently. It has become very commercial, a tourist attraction for bus loads of overweight, camera totting out of towners and their ill behaved children. I went to see A Raisin in the Sun on Broadway. Puff Daddy was in the lead role (which should tell you something). People we noisily eating, laughing at inappropriate times, talking back to the characters, it was a mess. It was the kind of behavior one has unfortunately had to become accustomed to in some the movie theaters (and you know what I mean). As far as movies go I've seen serious film at the Mayseles (in Harlem), IFC in (Greenwich Village), and other views (including my own). The movies (often include a discussion with the film maker) are attended by serious, intelligent, informed movie folks. Needless to say, far better behaved than patrons of the more expensive Broadway play. So I'll have to have a rare disagreement with you Cynique, regarding the relative elitism on Film versus theater. Carey man, I don't know what do say to you. I'm trying to hold a serious conversation and you are talking about guys jumping "out a window (Butt naked) to see if he can fly". Is this really going to be the foundation of your conversation? Ok I'll clarify, Most critical reviews (professional or otherwise, including my own) of Tyler's FCG film were more negative than positive. Virtually all that I've read from the adaptation of Ntozakes work lacking. Again I agree with this assessmentSome of these critics found Tyler's film to be an example of Male bashing. I disagree on this point.I commend Perry for given it the ole college try. I don't really recall any other reviewers condemning Perry on the attempt -- just the outcomeAs far as just regular folk, I've spoken to online and off, the reviews were mixed but mostly positive, some of them strongly positive.Again, Tyler had to know, based upon the source material, that this was not going to be a block buster film. I believe he did everything within his ability to make it a commercial success. He loading the film with popular and talented actors. All he was missing was Halley Berry and Queen Latifah. One could argue the effort to make the film a commercial success is counter to making it an artistic one. Again i reject this notion on very level. It can be done, it is just hard.

Whoa here. Let's see what I said. First of all, let's make a distinction between male critics offended by Tyler's portrayal of them, and drama critics displeased with Tyler's version of a Broadway play. Secondly, I didn't say you rarely hear of a play being made into a movie. This happens all the time, with mixed results, of course. Many Tennesse Wiliams and Lillian Hellman and Neil Simon plays have been adapted for the screen, as was award-winning black playwright August Wilson's play the "The Piano." So your reference to "A Raisin in the Sun" doesn't apply, Carey, because it was a play before it was a movie. What I did said was: you seldom hear of a movie later being made into a play probably because you'd have to edit out everything that couldn't be shown on a small stage and substitute action with dialogue, all of which changes the effect. Actually, "The Lion King" is a musical revue rather than a play and musicals can be presented in any venue, but - I will give you that, Troy. I would, however, appreciate you coming up with better examples of movies being made into plays. LOL. And, with all due respect to your emotional tribute to your new hero, Troy, I'm not blaming Tyler Perry for having the courage to do what Hollywood frequently does; which is to make a movie out of a play or a book or a - comic strip. e.g. Superman and Batman and Spider Man. Or am I putting him down for making a movie that gave men a bad rap. I'm just contending that the reason certain people in certain quarters reject the bastard children of a Broadway father and a Hollywood mother is because they want to preserve the essence of "the theater". They appreciate the beauty of dialogue and the magic of a live performance. You can't recapture on screen the intimacy of a play and the rapport between the audience and the actors. This is what they will all tell you. What I and many others are claiming about blowing up a play into a movie is that, - SOMETHING IS LOST IN THE TRANSLATION! And what is usually lost is the uniqueness of the original work. The stage and screen are 2 different vehicles in the field of performance and they should continue to exist independently of each other. (That's why they give movie stars "Oscars" and stage actors "Tonys", obviously.) Compare the high price of a ticket to a Broadway show with the $10.00 admission to a movie and you might get a hint of why movies are the preference of "the great unwashed". Pop corn and a Coke? Forget it. Expensive drinks are what is sipped during intermission at the Theater. Not all Theater customers are elitists, but all elitists are Theater patrons.

OK, Troy, I should've been more specific when using the term "stage", and made a distinction between the genres of "musicals" and "comedy" as opposed to the high drama of Broadway "theater". (This would be a good place to insert the famous images of the ancient Greek masks depicting Tragedy and Comedy.) I know the Addams family is a big hit on Broadway and this comedy was patterned after the TV series which actually was taken from the outre cartoons in the highly sophisticated New Yorker Magazine. These cartoons were always enigmatic, but the TV and screen versions turned Charles Addams' cryptic little gems into broad comedy. The musical "Annie" was based on the comic strip "Little Orphan Annie" and so, of course, was "You're A Good Man Charlie Brown" both of which were successful endeavors. Shakespearean plays also have been made into movies, but they had to be revised and expanded and made palatable to movie audiences. So this is a debatable subject. But I can't think of any original screenplay that was made into a movie and which somebody later decided, hummm, this film would make a good Broadway play so let's transform it into one, editing out all of the things that a movie has to illustrate, incorporating them into dialogue that challenges the imagination of the theater-goer. Doing this would especially compromise the intent of experimental art films which are created especially for the screen. In agreeing with the writer whose comments Carey posted, I was precariously putting myself in the category of elitists who don't want the mass media to encroach upon the domain of classic theater. The opinions both she and I voiced are held by many, including actors themselves who place TV and movies on a lower plane because they have wide popular appeal, not to mention playwrights who don't want their works given the "Hollywood" treatment. It's somewhat comparable to the book world, where the literati looks down its nose at commerical fiction. Many purists believe that unless a certain artistic standards are maintained, the tradition of the "theater" is tainted. I think you, Troy, speak as an entrepreneur who sees unlimited possibilities in any project that promises a profit. Yes, one can tackle the impossible and achieve the "difficult" but when doing this inevitably calls for distorting the original then you've turned a prototype into a stereotype - and the artistic integrity is sacrificed. Some things are better left alone. The Venus De Milo statue doesn't need arms to be iconic. IMO.

Troy, although you may vehemently disagree with some of my assertations, I would make a poor hustler out of you if I didn't question some of your supporting "opinions" to your position. I am sure everyone agrees there's a point A and a point B. Yet, you seem to be implying that the risks of getting to point "B" is always better than the consequences of the interim period between A and B, which we all know is not the case. I mean, Hip Hip Hooray for the "try" but fools go where wise men tread not. Sure it's easy for you to wrap your argument around "it's always possible".... "flight didn't come into existence"..... until man was around for thousands of years, but lets move away from the dream sequence and the ambiquity of the word "possible". Your use of the word "possibilty" minimizes the words "collateral damage" and "a pointless effort", to a degree that says ALL risks are worth a "possible" reward. Troy, excuse me, but that's utter nonsense. For every action there IS a reaction, and sometimes, the risk of that reaction is not worth the reward. So Troy, I ask that you rethink the following... "Some would argue that it is so difficult, that it should not even be attempted. I vehemently disagree with this point on every level" Now, I am suggesting that "hard" is not the optimum word. That's the core of your flawed argument. Hard work is the least of ones problems it they ignor the possible pitfalls in front of them. They can work their ass off and go nowhere, but to an ugly place. Come on back when you can bring a better analogy to support your opinion... other than the discovery of flight.

Hello John, it's nice to see you step in the waters of AALBC. You wrote: "By contrast, some of Perry’s films have provided a number of black artists (Kimberly Elise, Kerry Washington, Loretta Devine) with the opportunity to display the full range of their talents. Perry is not beyond criticism, but the criticism ought to bear some relation to reality. Whatever his faults he is not a modern minstrel show impresario" I can talk about that, and have debated the issue from several different points of view, particularly the angle that black actors have to have a place to work their craft. Also, we have to start somewhere... (there's always a starting point). Having said that, the NAACP was intrumental in the removal of the first black faces on TV because of what they saw as Coonery. The following is my response.... HOLY MACKEREL: THEY WERE MUCH MORE THAN COONS! Okay, so my lips are big and my head is long, but who are you calling a coon? Look at me, I am as helpless as a kitten in a tree. I feel like I am hanging on a cloud. Well, I realize you can't see me but I am hyped today. I am pumped, I am stoked, I can't control my emotions, and I'll tell you why. If the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, does that mean I am forever linked to the DNA of my biological family? Does it also mean I am a product of my environment? If all that be true, Holy Mackerel..... I'm in trouble. But I am too much in love with my family to sweat the small stuff. Did I mentioned that I was dripping with anticipation. In laymen terms, that means I might go on another long journey. If you'd like to come along, I am going to visit a family friend. My family has spread it's wings in an array of social and economical playing fields. Today I am going to stop by the house of my uncle Kingfish. He has past away. Some of you may know him. His real name is Tim. He is the brother of my grandfather. He played the part of George Stevens, aka Kingfish, on the early television series Amos & Andy. Yes, that's my family tree. He was raised in the same small town that I once called home. This is not a story of family barbecues, nor a tale of bedside chats. This is a story of messages from the past. I have a collection of the old program that I've shared with my children. Many talking heads have vilified the series as coonery at it's worst. They harped to the extent that it was banned from television. Some of those bobbing head negroes that have a propensity to look through the blues eye of other cultures, seem to have forgotten their past. But let me move forward. How about these lyric, lets see if they ring a bell.... Temporary layoff/ good times/ easy credit ripoff/ good times/ ain't we lucky we got them/ GOOD TIMES! WTH? What's good about easy credit ripoff! Did I hear a subliminal message? Can I say DYNAMITE! How about this one: Beans don't burn in the Kitchen {no mo'}/ grits don't burn on the grill {no mo'}/ took a whole lot of crying/ just to get up that hill {what hill?}/ Now we up in the big league {what league?}/ took our our turn at bat/ it's you and me baby/ and ain't nothing wrong with that/..... We MOVIN' ON UP. Hold up, wait one minute, don't go anywhere. What the hell was "that"? I mean, to start with, George Jefferson was Archie Bunker's special kind of fool. Sure, George was given a bone by being allowed to say "HONKY HONKY HONKY". But what businessman runs around doing the slop and yelling honky? Give me a freakin' break. George Jefferson made Kingfish look like a choir boy. And, what's this "movin' on up" thang? I mean, the brotha had 2 cleaners on the south side of Chicago. Do I hear a few more subliminal Messages? Lets move on down the road. The last time I checked, I didn't see any of the following "themes" in the Amos & Andy series, and I've seen all of them.I didn't see homosexuality, drug use or gun play. In an episode called "Kingfish finds his fortune", Amos and Kingfish had a argument. They squared off to fight. They waltzed around a table for about 30 second until both got so tired - they sat down. Oh the horror of it all. I shake with fear when I even think about that kind of violence. I never saw wife swapping or domestic violence in that series. I am yet to see one black person call another black person N**ga. I know I didn't see grown men salivating over the buttock of underage girls. Lord knows I didn't see any images of a grown man dressed in drag. WAIT! Did you hear that? Shhhhhush, listen, be quiet, I believe Tyler Perry has walked into the room ? Opps, can we go there? Can we walk down his street? Why not, lets go. But, maybe we should first ask those that said Amos & Andy sent out destructive messages, to see if it's alright. Maybe we should ask them to define racism. Maybe we should see if they have pictures of their uncle Toms cabin. Come to think of it, I am not going to waste my time dissecting the blatant sewer bowl of the wonderful world of Tyler Perry films. Well, not until those same aforementioned bobbin' head Uncle Toms & Tomettes compare them to the Amos & Andy series. Although Kingfish could be considered a huckster, and a con man, he didn't sell dope and he didn't steal from his fellow man. Nor did he cheat on his wife. Usually he paid for his misdeeds, and there were messages of redemption. Speaking of his wife, she wasn't Hattie McDaniels or Butterfly McQueen, and we all have images of their mammy ways. They are indelibly carved in our brain. Can anyone say mammy rags and ultra passivity? Mrs. Stevens role was unlike many roles given to our present queens of beauty. Who can forget the role given to Halle Barry in Monsters Ball? Can anyone say "flip flop whore". Kingfish's wife and mother-in-law were decent hard working black women. Without Sapphire, Kingfish may have been a lost man. Today I am thinking about my family and our first black president and the road that got us here. A part of me was a pioneer of black consciousness - one of the first black faces on television. A part of me is the first black face to lead the USA into a new world. Being first can be a thankless position. Depending on who's writing history, "first" can be erased from history, and replaced by the banter of it's supposed ill effects. Slavery seeps into my mind. A silent and lazy mind can be convinced that new is better than old, or "old" is not worth talking about. Without a first, there can never be a second. When I go down memory lane with my children, I suggest they seek the good and leave the bad behind. I believe it's important for all people to champion those that have gone before them. At least seek first to understand. Knowledge is king, without such, a person is left to the whims and opinions of another person, who may not have their best interest at heart. My uncle's house is no longer there. A Martin Luther King Center sits in it's place. The home is gone and so is my uncle, but his memory is alive. It's in me.Take a peek behind me. Is it dark back there? You'll have to tell me because I am not looking for the bad stuff. What's in your tree? I've heard it said that if a person doesn't stand for something, they will fall for anything. Holy Mackerel!

What the person quoted in Carey's post had to say really resonated with me, because it pretty much fleshed out what old Cynique, the woman of fewer words, said earlier about FGC losing its artistic integrity when it was sacrified on the altar of mass appeal. Unlike Troy, I appreciate that many literary people have a problem with giving stage plays make-overs via movies. You rarely here of a movie being made into a play, this being somewhat akin to "east being east and west, west and never the twain shall meet". The "stage" is an esoteric media. The "screen" is for "the great unwashed". Viva la difference! I also agree that predictibility does get old; fortunately, some things mellow with age. Similarly, Toni Morrison and Alice Walker were both unhappy with how "Beloved" and "The Color Purple" were interpreted on the screen, perhaps feeling the way Cher felt when she had to endure her beautful daughter Chastity being mutilated and mutated into a big, fat, goofy-lookin man, who is now her son Chazz.

Troy, you're a good man. *smile* You're my kind of man. You reached in your tight scrooge britches and dropped a few dollars so you could come back and put me in check. I like that. Hey, your words are reminiscent of many that I've heard. The following is one that says it all. It's an exchange I had with another person at another site. I pickup the conversation from here...... Joy said: "This is truly interesting, but I am not exactly surprised that people aren’t jazzed by this piece being re-imagined as a film by Tyler Perry. While I don’t think we need to bash Tyler Perry for attempting to do this film, one thing that has not been addressed is the fact that Ntozake Shange’s choreopoem is still vibrant as a theatre and literary piece after 35 years. The book For Colored Girls just went back on the NY Times Bestseller list. Some folks, like myself, had extreme reservations and some disappointments that the right to do this film was not handed to a Black female director. I also find Tyler Perry extremely similar to the late Frank Capra who created movies with clearly defined two-dimensional villains and two-dimensional heroes. Capra and Perry create/d entertainment that allowed audiences to escape. We all know in real life heroes are often deeply flawed and many villains have a few redeeming qualities. FYI: Tyler Perry came to see Jasmine Guy’s phenomenal direction and interpretation of this piece for Kenny Leon’s True Colors Theatre Company. I saw Tyler in the audience twice, and on one occasion he was present with Janet Jackson. I also think that there are times when an all-star cast can be a bit of a turnoff. However, I stand by the same position that I held the day I learned that Perry had received the green light from Lion’s Gate: For Colored Girls… belongs on the stage, period– Just like “Beloved” should never have been anything but a book by Toni Morrison. You have to damn near be a genius to take character-driven novels or theatre pieces and transform them to film. Film is almost always plot driven. When directors step outside of that formula they should be prepared for a limited audience." [Carey]: Ms. L Joy, based on your short(but fact filled) comment, you’re the type of person I would pay to have a conversation with. Really, I would pick your mind until you told me to go home. I loved the way you said the following… “We all know in real life heroes are often deeply flawed and many villains have a few redeeming qualities” In relation to FCG, there’s so much to say in those words and I’d ask for more. Futhermore, when you mentioned the difficulties associated with using an ensemble cast, I knew you knew what you were talking about. And again, I’d say, come on, give me more, talk to me. It’s very rare that movies comprised of more than, maybe, 4 “top stars”, each given more than a cameo role, reaches a level that would be considered a great film. And then…. THEN when you hit us with Tyler’s appearance at “Jasmine Guy’s phenomenal direction and interpretation of this piece for Kenny Leon’s True Colors Theatre Company” I knew you were someone to listen to. Again, I’d say, come on baby let me buy you dinner, I want to hear more. I don’t know when Tyler and Janet visted, but I wonder if he was researching the play to see if he could do it (and what actors to use) or if he was using the play as a way to tudor Janet? But wait, you were not done. You closed your comment with… “For Colored Girls… belongs on the stage, period– Just like “Beloved” should never have been anything but a book by Toni Morrison. You have to damn near be a genius to take character-driven novels or theatre pieces and transform them to film” See Ms. Joy, again you’ve left the door open and I want to know more. You obviously have a connection to film and/or theatre because your words say so. You are not a casual film buff that gives their opinion without supporting information, so as Marvin Gaye said, “What’s going on”? Talk to me… please. CareyCarey: "You are much too kind. I do have family and friends in film and theatre. I am a doctoral student of History. And I am doing some research on theatre history. I’m typically inside a theatre to see stage plays on average about 15 or 16 times a year. I’M GOING TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE (smile). With that said, I think Tyler Perry understands that there is only so far he can take his “Madea” films before his core audience grows weary of them. I also suspect that Perry has listened to some of his critics perhaps more than he should have. While his films have always had a certain predictability to them, I think that most of us occasionally enjoy a bit of predictability. It helps us escape. And let’s face it–sometimes you just don’t feel like watching anything too heavy all of the time. The only problem is that predictability also gets old. I think Perry’s attempts to demonstrate that he can do “serious” cinema may have backfired in some quarters as “For Colored Girls…” as a stage piece does not have a real linearity; and the piece is one subject to interpretation. I saw “For Colored Girls…” with LaTanya Richardson-Jackson as the ‘Lady in Red’ when she came home to Atlanta to perform the piece for the Alliance Theatre back in 1980. It was a dark and depressing piece in 1980. Jasmine Guy kept the piece’s original qualities, but she brightened it at the end by adding an exuberant running exit where all of the women cheered, danced to Mary J Blige, and then ran off the stage, colors streaming through the audience. The women had been through hell, but they would ultimately survive. Their suffering had been redemptive. Several folks who saw the original “For Colored Girls…” felt Guy’s production surpassed the original. Personally, I think Perry should have used unknown or less well known actors. The Atlanta cast used by Guy would have been phenomenal. I watched Crystal Fox weep real tears during four different performances that made me weep each and every time as if I were watching her for the first time. However, I suspect the real problem for Perry may be his trying to mix apples and oranges. He clearly is comfortable with his formula films. I’m not angry at him; he keeps a lot of brothers and sisters working. Yet “For Colored Girls…” cannot be easily reduced to formula because Shange designed the choreopoem to be interpreted in any number of ways. On stage it engages an audience the way film never can. As a cousin of mine said so eloquently, “Theatre humbles you.” There are no second takes and no performance is exactly the same. The actors and the audience are right there in the same room. I have seen actors ad lib with perfection or correct a mistake without anyone knowing a mistake took place. “For Colored Girls…” naturally resonates on stage because it was never designed to maintain the distance that film creates between actor and audience. Trying to recreate that intense emotion on film would be a challenge for the most experienced director and/or screenwriter. There will be those folks who are going to give Perry the benefit of the doubt and appreciate his effort. I certainly wish him the best. But there are going to be those folks who will be unable to overlook the film’s shortcomings precisely because Perry chose to tackle a “theatre classic” that has some recurring themes, but never had a real plot. And he is not the first person to make a film version of “For Colored Girls…” But you’ve never heard anyone say much about those other film versions either"

Chrishayden: In my opinion misogyny is bad no matter where it raises it's ugly head. But mysoginy relative to black women is different than the misogyny that might show up in County and Western music or Schwarzenegger movies because slander of black women historically in so many different ways, in so many different media, has been one of racism's props. Whatever misogyny there is or has been in C and W music, blue-eyed, blonds have not been dealt with by the society the way that black women have. Hence, it is particular hurtful and bad if black rappers play racism's game by joining in the slander of black women. (How can you separate out misogyny against black women from misogyny against women? Like a misogynist is going to slander white women and then treat black women like queens? No, if he's going to treat his woman like a dog he's going to treat ours like dogsh*t. There are some who say that the freest people in this society have been white men and black women, with white women and black men following in that order. . I don't hold to that myself, of course.) That said, it does not mean that there can be no play, movie or novel by black writers that confronts and explores tensions that might exist in relationships. My comments about FOR COLORED GIRLS suggested looking at in that light, and if it both members of a couple feel that they are in a good place in their relation then, for them, it's just a movie they'll probably enjoy talking about over an after show pizza. JohnH (They'll probably wind up yelling at each other and stalking off in opposite directions--as should happen if people are getting it off their chests. I finally met a black woman who doesn't like Madea. She's also the only black person I have met who thinks Michael Jackson was a pedophile)

Gee, Guys, I certainly wasn't suggesting that Obama and Perry are entitled to have pity parties thrown for them. I'd be the first to agree that nobody is ever "promised a rose garden". I just juxtaposed these 2 to show how black men are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. The males in Tyler's movies "did't", and Obama "did", and still they all catch hell. Tough shit.

But it's all about whose ox is being gored, isn't it? Even now, we get all these shrill squeals when somebody brings up all the misogyny in rap (they never seem to care about it in Country Music, Rock or Arnold Shwartzenegger movies, but I guess that is another conversation). I wonder where all the voices of reason and mercy are when we talk about that? "But that's different" say the voices. Some people think it ain't. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We all need to respect each other's opinions and not tell somebody to go have a pizza. I'd like to tell Tyler Perry what he can do with that pizza, allright.

"To a boy with a hammer all the world is a nail". Is that right? Well, "to the victor goes the spoils" And, wait one minute, lets take a look at your other mis-steps. "But alas that is seemingly all Tyler knows how to do - pit evil men against Christian women" Now Troy, do I have to tell you that you've stepped in a bucket of doo doo? Oh, that's right, you didn't see the movie. But do tell (maybe you read it in a review) what "Christain" woman (character) was in FCG. Huh.... tell me that? Wait, I'll tell you, ONE, Whoopie was a religious fanatic. But more importantly, what evil men were in FCG? Huh... tell me that? Of course everyone knows about the rapist, but other than that, there was not one other evil man. And please, for you to imply that Hill Harper was some type of evil or "no good" man is purely ridiculous. Obviously you must have read that sentiment from someone that knows nothing about police work, particularly how a rape victim has to be questioned. The questioning of the rape victim was standard procedure. I am sure you've been reading the paper? Sure you have. So you have probably seen how some "rape victims" are not really rape victims. So lets move on. "I even read Michael Ealy's comments. But Michael was a star in the film and clearly his comments are biased. Did expect Ealy to have ANYTHING bad to day about the film?" Ahh Troy, excuse me? So let me get this straight, since Michael Ealy was in the movie, his words have no merit? Do I have to say that that's ludicrous. In this instance, the man simply gave his perspective on the overall theme of the movie. Gosh Troy, you're sinking. So Troy, tap the mat or cry uncle or go see the movie because you're woefully unprepared to voice a qualified opinion on FCG. You should just leave "well enough" alone. But that's right, you're talking straight talk and my addition to the conversation is a rant. Now that's something to ponder. Run, run, run, but you sho' can't hide An eye for an eye A tooth for a tooth Vote for me, and I'll set you free Rap on brother, rap on Well, the only person talkin' 'Bout love thy brother is the preacher And it seems, Nobody is interested in learnin' But the teacher Segregation, determination, demonstration, Integration, aggravation, Humiliation, obligation to our nation Ball of Confusion That's what the world is today The sale of pills are at an all time high Young folks walk around with Their heads in the sky Cities aflame in the summer time And, the beat goes on Air pollution, revolution, gun control, Sound of soul Shootin' rockets to the moon Kids growin' up too soon Politicians say more taxes will Solve everything And the band played on So round 'n' round 'n' round we go Where the world's headed, nobody knows Just a Ball of Confusion Oh yea, that's what the wold is today http://careycarey-ca...r-perry_13.html

Have you ever seen "A Clockwork Orange"? It's sort of a wild imagery movie. I feel that's how "For Colored Girls" could have been a movie but remained like the play. There's so much you can do (and tell) with imagery and fantasy and words. Black cinema needs to move into other realms. We need science fiction films and other modes of storytelling. We're quite sophisticated now. I do understand why Linda liked the movie, though. It was entertaining and the acting was superb!