Be Fruitful: The Tyler Perry Production Model

"It takes a week to do a sitcom in Hollywood. I do a show a day in my studio, three or four shows a week." -Tyler Perry. (IMDB.COM)


In less than 10 years, Tyler Perry Studios has released 10 feature films. His television series, "House of Payne" has aired over 200 episodes while "Meet the Browns" is well past 130 episodes. For "Better of Worse", a new series, is set to air shortly. His numerous stageplays have grossed well over $75 million dollars in dvd and ticket sales.


But why is this amount of production the exception and not the rule? Compared to the production capacity of old guard studios like MGM, Paramount, or Columbia, Tyler Perry Studios is still in its nascent stage, however, in terms of sheer production frequency, viewer recognition and popularity, Perry is the upstart start-up already wearing the crown, just as "The Big 5" dethroned RKO in the 1940's.


MGM and its peers are parent companies over a host of subsidiary production studios. Numerous shows and films are produced under the banner of those names, rather than overtly listing the main production company. Tyler Perry Studios, in an apparent shift, releases everything under its auspices, leaving no doubt as to "his" products.


Perry as CEO, producer, writer, and actor also receives a great deal of self generated public exposure, notably through his monthly emails to his fanbase.  Even the most ardent movie goers would have a very hard time naming the president of MGM or Tri-Star, let alone recognizing his face. Marketing at those big studios is handled by separate areas or marketing companies who focus on advertising upcoming films or dvd's. Perry pens personable emails, detailing highly personal information such as grief about the death of his mother and in the process gaining more fans. He invites fans to post on his message board claiming to read the messages in his "spare time."


By the time a movie is released, it has already been tested by select audiences. Perry's studios test too, I'm sure, but he avidly solicits feedback and ostentatiously pushes his fans to go see his films with a "reminder" email  just before opening weekend, while most studios simply bombard us with trailers that only show the few good parts of the film. 


So is Perry an independent filmmaker, part of the Big 6, or a self-contained multi-faceted production unit? He seems to be a magical hybrid of them all - like some exotic superfruit that can heal any and every illness transmitted by the established production industry. 


Remarkably, he's avoided producing any "reality" shows, a curious omission that constitutes an incredibly profitable aspect of the major studios production portfolio. In fact, Perry avoids touching the entertainment products that make others successful. Some may complain that his films are formulaic, but it is a magical, guaranteed money-making formula. New actors appear in every new Hollywood film, while Perry routinely "recycles" actors from his plays and films. It's not uncommon to see the same actor in successive films. His films are usually set in the South, a region still stereotyped in Hollywood films. 


I know Hollywood is listening and watching, nervously? Resentfully? The recent release of "Jumping the Broom" to a tepid critical reception proves that Hollywood is at least experimenting with Perry's "formula". But merely taking the best parts of Perry's productions -attractive Black actors, gorgeous scenery, weddings- and blending it all up is tantamount to grinding up apples, sugar, and a crust and expecting a pie to magically appear.


Perry's mad production schedule continues with the formation of a subsidiary film production company, 34th Street films, whose internet site is not live and about whom only sketchy details exist. He recently took another play on tour (a studio exec on tour?), though he reluctantly cancelled several dates due to exhaustion, proving that he is still human. At the date of this writing, he is planning...who knows? But there is no doubt that he is planning something, because all superfruits produce seeds.

FACT: Women with Cats Make Better Mates

The single girl living with a cat conjures images of a lonely shut-in, but nothing could be further from the truth. Any man serious about finding wife material need only look as far as the kitty litter box. Women who care for cats are more patient, clever, loyal, loving, and sexy just like, well, cats.

The animal kingdom exemplifies and explains human relationships better than any lab rats or Tom Hanks romantic comedy.  Dogs, with their carefree, unquestionable loyalty and skill for hunting animals that humans like to eat, are "man's" best friend.  Rowdy, hardy, and sturdy, dogs display strength and power. But while Rover may be the honorary brother of all men and protector of the family, women need a pet with a slightly more covert personality.

Cats reflect women's character, personality, and moods with the eerie precision of a fun house mirror. Cats often rebuff human affection for no apparent reason. Shameless attention hogs, they insist on being brushed and pet until they sag limply with pleasure. They never tire of softly spoken compliments. Cats appear unapproachable and even arrogant, yet are self-effacing and even self-unaware. Unpredictable, lovable, inscrutable women, uh, I mean cats.

Cats will only "go" in certain places, unwilling to compromise the sanctity of their bathroom breaks and seem to be aware of inner flaws and goodness in humans that we cannot detect.

So while dogs like to "do" the same things as men, cats "act" more like women.

When women care for these beautiful beasts they are, in effect, getting to know themselves better. And women who know themselves better are more confident and secure in who they are. For men, these means a woman who, while still subject to, er, swift (but occasional) adjustments in temperament, are loyal and loving for the long haul.

And a woman who is willing to take care of a four-legged version of herself, can't be a bad deal.

"I Remember"-How Nostalgia For What Never Was Is Wrecking Black Films

The Golden Age of Film. Such sentimental phrases conjure up black and white or sepia images of times when no one locked their doors and every American had a roof over his head and a nickel could buy you breakfast, lunch, and dinner...what?! This essentially is the crux of the rootless debate as to what constitutes "good" or "bad" Black films.

Why Black people want to imagine past films as being "better" than some of today's films baffles me, but if the past holds the secret to the future of Black film, let's go for a stroll down memory lane.

My film watching career really began in the 1990's- that's when I actually began going to the movies. The first film I ever saw was "White Men Can't Jump", starring Wesley Snipes and Woody Harrelson. I remember it being a very popular film and can't quite recall anyone asking why Rosie Perez, a Hispanic chick, was intimate with Woody, a White boy, on film. We teenagers all had a good laugh over Woody's antics and were (slightly) amazed at his b-ball skills; by then it was well known that White men could, in fact, jump.

Why one film based on a stereotype was one of the 20 highest grossing films of 1992 and produced several mega-stars is beyond me. But it happened.  Is that a "Black" film to be proud of? Okay, maybe that's not Black enough for you, so let's continue down memory lane.

By the way, 1992 was the same year that Boomerang and Malcolm X came out. I don't remember a fall out between Eddie Murphy and Denzel Washington, but I guess it could have happened, behind the scenes.  For the record, Sister Act, Lethal Weapon, The Bodyguard, The Distinguished Gentleman, Passenger 57, Mo' Money, and Candyman were all in theaters AT THE SAME TIME. All of these films starred Black actors.

My point is simple. In one year, many incredibly successful Black movies with different tones and direction were released. There was no argument. There was no debate because there was no need. Some were comic,  crazy and compelling, and others were, well, crappy.

Films are not really meant to be a marker of racial demographics or other socio-political issues, but if people wish to believe that past black films were infinitely better styled,  then there is plenty of evidence that this was not so.  Does this make Martin's Lawrence's hilarious portrayal of Big Momma simply a $25 million embarrassment (opening weekend gross)? I think not.

If I fast forward through the 90's a plethora of Black films crowded the theaters. Gangsta' oriented films dramatically impacted the Black film landscape; Dead Presidents, Boyz n the Hood, Set It Off, Menace II Society, Poetic Justice, to name a few. As a matter of fact, so many gangsta films came out during this time, that a Wayans spoof film was even made. These then gave way to a more romantic spate of Black films, notably The Best Man and Love Jones, along with The Wood and The Inkwell (set in the Vineyard).

The 2000's started off quite promising with Love & Basketball, then The Brothers and Deliver Us From Eva,  but seemed to cool down considerably until T.P. set us on fire for film again (he has 6 and counting under his belt so far) in just 5 years..

Fast forward to 2011.  Now, as then, Black films are starting to saturate the film marketplace again with new directors, producers, and writers. I don't know why the Hughes Brothers, John Singleton, and many other talented directors seemed to stop making movies. Ask them. All I do know is that Black films have had a glorious, topically diverse past and are presently enjoying a Renaissance. Queen Latifah now produces her own films. TD Jakes is staunchly focused on producing more and more Christian films. I'm dying to know who's next.

So to the critics, stop imagining the past as the pinnacle of Black film, it was only the precursor to an even richer period of adventurous and diverse Black filmmaking. And if that doesn't satisfy you, just throw a House Party.

"Produced By Faith": Book Review

Firstly, you have to read this book twice. Any book that describes the inner workings of the Hollywood movie machine ought to be read twice, especially when it's written by a Christian executive.

DeVon Franklin, the Sony movie executive who penned the book, unapologetically lays bare the trials and rewards of working in "the business" as a born again Christian.  Splitting the book into two parts, Development and Production, Franklin congenially styles life as a Hollywood film, with none other than God Almighty as the Director.

As the executive who purchased the "Jumping the Broom" script, Franklin resides in an eviable place in Hollywood, however, he humbly admits that he still feels that he is in Development, both professionally and personally. The book's progression maps Franklin's life from childhood until the present, exposing deep pain, his relentless ambition, and his faith without trying to explain it all away and without dwelling on it. But Franklin is a "process" man and does a remarkable job of meticulously arranging all of his difficulties (and ours) as a script on its way to production, with a bump or two along the way.

Outlining a path to success by just following God's will seems deceptively easy and it is. But Franklin doesn't sugarcoat (he really doesn't) and challenges the reader with lists of probing questions at the end of every chapter as a kind of raw self-assessment. Many are difficult to answer, hence, why I suggest reading the book twice. But ultimately the author does hold your hand. He's the big brother you always wanted and the executive who's actually on your side. Each chapter is gently crafted to speak specifically to your career situation with humorous anecdotes, bold advice, and a tongue-in-cheek look at his own mistakes.

This book is for EVERYONE who is at a career crossroads, dead end, or doing a u-turn, but is particularly useful for Christian writers and filmmakers who may feel that Hollywood is out of reach or the gateway to hell. Even as a Christian producer, he apparently does not feel bound to one particular film genre. Franklin optimistically argues that there is room for every script, if you're willing to go through the entire development process, no matter how long it takes.

Having met Mr. Franklin at a book signing, I can report that the authenticity and earnestness I felt in his book does carry through to the person. He does not "look" like a slick Hollywood exec, but is more or less reminiscent of a young English professor and speaks clearly, without rancor or buzz words sounding, frankly, more like an idealistic young preacher (incidentally, he is ordained).

Well, preach on, Mr. Franklin. The Christian film making world is listening, reading, and watching.

http://producedbyfaith.com