Why do only white guys people get to make mega-budget fantasy films?

I appreciate the larger point and am not suggesting that this is anywhere near enough, but aren't there currently two mega-budget fantasy films by Black directors showing in multiplexes across the world?

@1) race is indeed a big part of black panther.

Instead of saying she’s making the kind of movie whites get to make, could we say that she’s making the kind of money whites get to make.

I don't know Charles. Maybe DuVernay's a "glass half full" kind of person and you're a "glass half empty" kind? Maybe it was easy for her to make a movie that doesn't need to highlight race or class or the U.S. economy because she doesn't distress on those things herself but instead makes the film mirror the fantasy and sense of alien fascination that the book does?

There's still a lot of inequality in the world, but some people think it's getting better while others think it's getting worse. Maybe which kind of person one is on that scale shows in the films they make and/or enjoy?

"A Wrinkle in Time" is a story about; family loyalty, adolescent insecurity, courage, love of many kinds, rejecting conformity, and the great leap it takes to have faith in yourself. I think Ava did a remarkable job of externalizing what is an almost entirely internal story. I think she pulled great performances out of very young actors. I think no one is going to talk about the rhythm and pacing problems in the film, or the fact that the shaky camera work is entirely distracting, because the director is a black woman and so any critique is going to be framed as social and not artistic.
I think the "can't" in this scenario is about our conversation after the fact, not the work itself.

Another interesting note is that one of the themes of the book is that everyone has faults, but people should be accepted for who they are. More importantly, that they should be accepted because of their faults rather than in spite of them. All the primary characters have faults and make mistakes, even the three celestial beings (Mrs. Who, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs. Which). The science and magic and wonder of everything else is just window dressing to the main theme.

It's only on Camazotz, the featured bad planet, that everyone is "perfect" and nobody makes any mistakes (or they are severely punished).

It's against that forced "equality" and perfection that Meg and the others are fighting.

In fact

*SPOILER ALERT*

That's partially how Meg frees her brother, by accepting him for his faults.

*END OF SPOILER*

If the film director purposefully included lots of different races and classes in the film, and then specifically ignored all those differences in order to blur the lines of so-called *faults*, then that's a stroke of genius on her part. In my humble opinion.

@5 You need to read some reviews. Most I’ve read are pretty mixed and mentioned the problems with uneven tone, pacing, etc.

It doesn't tap or dip into the timeless, but reinforces a concept of society that has been shaped by historical and economic forces.

Spot on. This is exactly the problem with a very great deal of art these days. We seem to have collectively decided as a culture to eliminate the transcendent. And so we end up with "art" that is either propaganda or mindless entertainment or utterly and deliberately incoherent.

"The reason so many white people make fantasy films is not because it is the norm (or that they, and not others, live in a perfect world), but because they don't want to deal with stories about black women who have been beaten and humiliated by racist cops or black men whose lives are permanently destroyed by a profit-seeking prison system."

Absurdist statement. First, many white directors have done exactly this kind of film. Second, if a white director did this today, they would be BBQ'd for it. No one would step up and say that this is the kind of film Hollywood should give to white directors.

And maybe DuVernay actually liked the material and wanted to add a CGI heavy project to her CV.

Are white Hollywood directors avoiding opportunities to make movies like Selma and Fruitvale Station or are they bogarting opportunities to make films like Amistad, The Color Purple, Mississippi Burning, Ghosts of Mississippi, Time to Kill, Django Unchained, The Long Walk Home, and (on and on and on) that could have gone to black directors? You need to pick one.

Charles

I assume that you don't have children.

I'm the father of adult African American children, and I wish there had been movies like this being made when they were younger.
Young children aren't interested in seeing movies about the evils of capitalism or police brutality.
Young children enjoy movies that are full of fantasy, no matter what color their skin is.
I can't tell you how powerful it is when a young child that normally doesn't see themselves represented in a movie like this gets a chance to see a movie where the hero actually looks like them.
Movies like Black Panther, that are both exciting and speak to social issues, are great; but so are movies that cast Black actors in prominent roles that are not political.
Black filmmakers should be allowed to make the movies they want to make, whether they're trying to make a statement or simply entertain the audience.
More importantly, children of color should have access to movies made by filmmakers of color starring actors of color that are intended simply for entertainment and enjoyment.

I'm not sure that I believe any art can be timeless or universal, but I'm not sure why it's inherently more noble or correct to focus on any time's social or economic realities over its conceptions of the psychological, symbolic, or, for lack of a better word, "spiritual". One can believe both that the self is a social construct (and thus affected by matters like race, class, gender, and sexuality) AND that this social construct is an important, individuated phenomenon worth exploring in the abstract (i.e., through symbol, fantasy, etc.).

Fantasy is probably not the default. But if focus on either the individual or the (ostensibly) "universal" is a function of privilege (I take some issue with this assertion, but will grant it arguendo here), then in the "ideal" society - presumably one in which "privilege" has no meaning because our ability to function and self-determine is equal - the exploration of those spheres that interact with the social and economic power structures, but are not wholly or inextricably tied to them in 1-to-1 ratios or causative relationships, would be equally available to all, and inevitably compelling to some people who might otherwise be concerned primarily with the instruments of their own marginalization.