This is not a column about what a wonderful film "Dreamgirls" is.
This isn't about its all-star cast or the spectacle of its song and dance numbers.
This isn't about how the story supposedly mirrors the rise of the Supremes and the dynamic among those three talented and complicated women.
This column is about the racism still embedded in our society and how it was put on display for the world in the marketing of Paramount Pictures' $70 million movie.
A mega-release of the caliber of "Dreamgirls," timed for prime Oscar glory as it was with its Christmas Day opening, is usually sent for screening to 2,500 to 3,000 theaters nationwide.
"Dreamgirls," featuring an ensemble of black actors from Beyonce Knowles to Danny Glover, opened in 852 theaters.
A week ago, Paramount finally expanded the film's release to 1907 theaters, still far below the average opening numbers for such a movie.
An explanation offered for Paramount's behavior is that this is a limited release strategy meant to build anticipation for the film.
I might believe that if I hadn't witnessed a countless number of "Dreamgirls" flashy, catchy commercials weeks before its initial Christmas release.
I might believe it if I had been able to get the line "We're your dreamgirls, oo oo oo" out of my head for a mere five minutes at any point in the month of December.
I might believe it if it made any kind of fiscal sense.
But in this age of Hollywood, when a film's worth is assessed by its box office figures for opening weekend and an initially low turnout all but sends a movie to video before the sun's up Monday morning, I don't believe that Paramount was building anticipation.
I believe that Paramount was skeptical that an all-black cast could attract white audiences, and they decided to test the waters in a handful of theaters before they embarrassed themselves by supporting their own movie.
I wish there was a way to figuratively slap Paramount in the face without contributing $7 of my hard-earned student ticket money to the studio's pocketbook, but unfortunately, I can't think of one.
I appear not to be alone in this, as American cinema-goers have responded with their wallets. As of January 14, "Dreamgirls" has made over $67 million, no small feat considering the limited number of people able to see it.
Critics have also celebrated the movie. It was recently nominated for five Golden Globes, of which it received three, including Best Motion Picture.
The film has also been recognized by the Directors Guild, the Image Awards, the National Board of Review, the New York Film Critics Circle, the Palm Springs International Film Festival and the Screen Actors Guild, among others.
Most recently, "Dreamgirls" received eight Academy Award nominations, more than any other film in this year's Oscar race.
Yet the film's success can't come as much of a surprise to anyone whose brain isn't suffering under the assumption that whites won't like a black movie.
It's based on a Tony award-winning Broadway play, and it stars some of the most successful entertainers in the industry, including Jamie Foxx, and the multi-platinum selling Beyonce.
As a kid, I could never understand what it meant to cut off your nose to spite your face, but I hope Paramount is smarting under that self-inflicted wound right now.
The studio could have stood to make an enormous amount of money by promoting "Dreamgirls" as it would have any similar movie with a white cast.
Instead, they've embarrassed themselves, lost millions of dollars and demonstrated that in Hollywood, money continues to reign supreme over talent, and if the pursuit of money requires acting like a racist, then so be it.
Hanna Ricketson shoots straight from the hip and occasionally enjoys a wacky cliche. Reach her at: hanna.ricketson@asu.edu.
