Another 50th anniversary - Thank you, Sir Sidney.

Fifty years ago tonight, an event occurred that was much more important to me, my family, my friends, and most people I knew, than The Beatles' first appearance on Ed Sullivan two months earlier.

This 50th anniversary has received no notice that I know of, except that I saw it mentioned in the Post-Gazette's Almanac:

1964 Sidney Poitier became the first black performer in a leading role to win an Academy Award for his performance in "Lilies of the Field."

In the years and decades following, Black peoples' relationship with Hollywood would continue to be tested over and over by stereotypical casting, by the passing over of Blacks for awards, and by the awarding of awards for roles that many view as atavistic at best and damaging at worst.

But in 1964, such controversies would have been unimaginable. In 1964, for a Black actor to receive the Best Actor Oscar was barely imaginable. The mere fact of Sidney Poitier's nomination made us swell with pride.

And when he won...let me try to say it simply, since I can never say it adequately: on the night of April 13, 1964, Black America's world became brighter in two minutes. Something that might have been an impossibility before suddenly became a reality, widening the realm of possibility forever.

For a boy in the seventh grade, that was not a vague abstraction; it was a change in how I believed I could live.

If Sidney Poitier had never done anything else after that night, I, along with millions of others, would remain in his debt. The fact that he continued to do great work, year after year after year, merely adds more heft to the ledger.



Thank you, Sir Sidney, and may God continue to bless.

(This is a rewrite, because the Internet lets you do that. The original is here.)

So, been to the movies lately?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation since 1995 has totaled 48 percent. That is, what cost $1.00 in 1995 cost $1.48 in 2011.

That's an overall generalization: some things have gone down in price, and some things have gone up, but by less than 48 percent. And some things have gone up by more than 48 percent. Way more.

Like movie tickets.

According to a piece in the Chicago Tribune, headlined "Movie ticket sales hit 16-year low in 2011," movie tickets prices have risen more than 80 percent since 1995.

So is anyone surprised that people are buying fewer tickets? Really?

Last Thursday, I returned from 10 days or so in Louisville. Usually when I'm there for an extended visit, I'll go to a movie with family members. This time, I didn't. Janet and I stopped at a theatre once, but we didn't see anything showing that we wanted to see badly enough to part with the necessary cash.

I know people who have sworn off movie theatres on the basis of economics. Again, with an 80 percent increase in ticket prices during a period in which overall inflation has been 48 percent, does this surprise anyone?

Better question, perhaps: who cares? Or more precisely, who cares enough to change anything that they're doing?

Hollywood studios charge movie theatre owners to rent movies. Do they care enough about ticket sales to change anything they're doing, or do they view theatrical exhibition as merely a prelude to DVD sales and rentals?

Theatre owners certainly care, but do they care enough to do the most obvious thing to do when sales of an item decline - i.e., reduce the price? Do they trust their market enough to say, "At the right price, we'll sell more tickets, enough to cover increasing expenses?"

Atticus shared with me yesterday his idea that a smart studio/production company would have theatre owners cut the ticket prices for their releases, while offering them 15% of sales.

Are any Hollywood studios that smart? Hmmmm........