Talk:List of black films of the 2010s

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

African diaspora

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

2018

I had started List of black films of 2018 but have copied its content to this list and redirected that link to here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The merge discussion related to putting 2018 under the 2010s can be found here: Talk:List of black films of 2018#Merge? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black films? Or black American films?

What exactly is the criteria for a 'black film' here? In this instance, it seems to exclusively refer to films made by/for/about black Americans.

Virtually every single film made in Africa is made by/for black people - but you won't find one here. Totally overlooked in this list. As are 'black films' from Europe. Perfect example of US-centrism on Wikipedia.

I recommend changing the article title to 'List of African American films'. Even the idea of a 'black film' seems too broad, to me - some of these films are made and directed by non-black people and star an eclectic mix of ethnicities.80.192.27.175 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources list black films from the US. A few listed black films from the UK. Based on sources, it does not seem like African films really fall under this classification. I'm not sure what a better title would be, but perhaps the lead section can mention something related to the African diaspora, if there are sources to back that connection. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i agree with the thread. let's change the title of the page and all of the pages that are related 2405:204:B30F:DC25:B549:BE16:BB66:DF45 (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sundayclose (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Racism

Why does this page exist? Why can't a film just be a film, instead of being a "black film"? Shocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.164.72 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not racism. There are black film festivals. Such films are recognized because predominant society often lacks such films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever society is predominant is not the issue here. Your primary criterion is skin pigmentation and are citing clickbait articles as sources. It is completely racist to state that a movie like, for example, Get Out is a "black film". This is just further proof of the growing corruption of the wiki system. I'm not even going to edit your article, I'm going to leave it exactly as it is and show it to people as an example of how progress is being stifled at an academic level by bigots with one foot firmly planted in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.164.72 (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "completely racist" to state that Get Out is a black film. This classification is supported by many sources. See black film's "Bibliography" section for numerous sources about black film. Wikipedia follows sources, which do discuss race in film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IT is RACIST! Films don't have colour. Films are films. Stop promoting black racism. This article should be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.146.40.103 (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Miseducation of Cameron Post

Why is The Miseducation of Cameron Post listed here? Yes, it has one Black principal actor, but the protagonist of the movie is white, and the director isn't Black either, so it seems like it doesn't qualify. 131.194.189.37 (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion Criteria

What exactly are the inclusion criteria for this list? I don't disagree that black film is a meaningful designation (as is discussed below), but inclusion in this list seems extremely arbitrary. Several of them are made by, for, and about white people, in direct contrast to the article description of black films as "having a black cast, a black crew, a black director, a black story, or a focus on black audiences."

To wit, I attempted to remove "Green Book", which is a particularly egregious example, and was told I was overriding "reliable sourcing" with my "opinion". The "reliable sourcing" seems to be a single review by a black person that does not even identify "Green Book" as a black film. (As a side note, using this kind of spurious source to support a convenient categorization was pointed out before and dismissed, despite it being an entirely valid criticism in the context of Wikipedia's standards.) Meanwhile, it's not my opinion that "Green Book" is not a black movie. The movie was written, directed, and produced by white people. Two of the three stars are white. The viewpoint character is white. The source material is a biography of a white person written by another white person. It has a black lead, sure. But so does 2 Guns, and that isn't listed. The only other reason I can think of that this is being considered a black movie is that the title refers to The Negro Motorist Green Book, a piece of black culture that has been appropriated as a title for a movie that really has nothing to do with it. "Green Book" is not a black film. It's a white savior film being marketed as a black film. The fact that this page apparently cannot distinguish between the two should give pause to anyone thinking of using this article as a meaningful source.

The solution is to actually define the criteria by which something should be considered a black film. As I see it, there are two options: (1) only include films that are actually made by/for/about black people, in which case "Green Book" at the very least should be removed or (2) include all films, including white films, that have a black lead or mention race. In the latter case, the article would be useless and very culturally biased, but at least consistent.

Here are some sources that talk about "Green Book" being targeted at white people.

-mgillson —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria is if a film has been called a black film by reliable sources. There is no clear-cut definition of a black film, so we as editors should not override what reliable sources say. Not to mention that there are all kinds of black films. This does not mean that Green Book is not problematic (as reliable sources show, regardless of what you and I think), and that can definitely be discussed at the film's own article. Here we have straightforward plot descriptions for each film, and while we could expand beyond such descriptions, I think the articles themselves are the best locations to explore themes and contexts. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding it being treated as a white savior film, it can definitely be added to that article. I already listed it on the talk page there and can add it soon. These two classifications are not mutually exclusive. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is and is not a "reliable source" is culturally situated. Considering a source "reliable" is a decision you as an editor are making. Since most media is white-owned, that means that the white perspective on what a film does and does not constitute is going to be far easier to "source". Appealing to sources without any consideration of what constitutes reliability is just a way of deferring responsibility for the contents of the article. I posted four links that I consider to be far more reliable in this context.
Moreover, there are no reliable sources saying that "Green Book" is a black film. By that I mean two things: (1) nobody who is saying that "Green Book" is a black film is reliable, because objectively nothing about the film's creation was black and (2) there are no sources that say that cited. There is one source cited, so to be clear, you are not appealing to "reliable sources", you're appealing to what one person wrote. And even that source is an aggregate of reviews that just appears under a headline that includes the words "black films". Other than that, all that's on the page about "Green Book" is a straight-up review. No commentary. No placing it. No analysis. Just a plot summary and a boilerplate line about its Oscar chances. Is that really all that is necessary to place a film as "black"? One reviewer including it in a gestalt roundup of one film festival? Because, again, I posted four links that say the opposite.
Am I really supposed to believe that "sources" are the only thing that matter? If I could find one page that said that "A New Hope" is a black movie, would we add that to the list? There's really no place in the evaluation process for just thinking about and considering the thing being documented?

-mgillson —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source identifies Green Book as a black film. Like you said, it is listed as one of several black films under the heading that groups them together. I agree that there are reliable sources identifying problems with this film. The problems do not mean that the film is no longer classified as a black film. The body of black films includes problematic ones. If you want to contextualize the film's listing further with the reliable sources you listed, we can discuss that. Though I'd rather do that on the film's own article, and we could add an anchor link to the description here so readers can find the full context. But if a reliable source supports this classification in a straightforward way, editors should not be overriding that with their own assessments, especially based on their assumption that such a film has to be without problems to be included here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You responded to literally nothing I said.

-mgillson —Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]