Yes and no. A lot of it comes down to definition.
What's "BLACK"?
What's "CLICHE"?
What's "WORKS"?
"BLACK" - On some "for us, by us" shit? I say possibly, but probably not. It's that line Denzel said in Mo' Better: "If we had to depend on black people to eat, we would starve." No one checks for Spike Lee's movies, even fewer check for other black directors, which causes a lot of black directors to not even be interested in doing "black" work. The only "black" films that "work" ("work" by h'wood standards) rely on those cliches and stereotypes.
"CLICHE" - Technically, the "black version of _________" movie is a cliche. But I can say this. I'm noticing a change, a change I hope I'm at the vanguard of, from "We can do it too!" then to "We can do it better!" and now towards "We can do something else!" So I believe yes without cliche is possible, if for no other reason than that sentiment.
"WORKS" - To me, this is the biggest linchpin. Because "works" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. A film "works" if it finds its audience. But if that film's audience is only a few people, then the film "didn't work". I believe there's an audience for say, a black independent indie ala that new movie coming out starring the nice guy from The Office. Is that audience large enough to sustain/warrant a studio putting in millions of dollars? Probably not. This is the single biggest thing holding up black movies. Because a minority of a minority, in all likelihood, won't generate returns. It's the same reason there are no major h'wood films of/about Native Americans, why there are no women action flicks, and why they don't make stereotype-free black movies. The cats in charge do not see the profit.
Personally, my interests lie in my nephew. I would like him to grow up, see the films I was part of, and not feel ashamed that this is what paid his college tuition.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams