The Green Book

[tchm]

The PGA, which has been aligned with the Oscars for Best Picture 12 out 18 times this century, picked The Green Book as Best Picture this year. Is the backlash against this movie getting its own backlash?

[+ stevenkesslar]

The PGA, which has been aligned with the Oscars for Best Picture 12 out 18 times this century, picked The Green Book as Best Picture this year. Is the backlash against this movie getting its own backlash?

 

Oscars 2019 overlooks ‘Green Book,’ ‘Bohemian’ backlash

 

https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/oscars-2019-overlooks-green-book-bohemian-backlash/

 

That would be a yes, I guess.

 

It's not a bad thing that films that would have been cutting edge half a century ago (Guess Who's Coming To Dinner) or a generation ago (Driving Miss Daisy) are passé today.

 

I saw Green Book a week ago and If Beale Street Could Talk last night. It's noteworthy that the first got a Best Picture nomination, the second didn't.

 

The complaint about Green Book that I take the most seriously is this:

 

Shirley's own family condemned the film, saying filmmakers never reached out to them for accuracy during the making of the biopic. Nephew Edwin Shirley III told Shadow and Act that the depiction of his uncle, who had marched at Selma and was close friends with Nina Simone, being uncomfortable with his blackness as "just 100% wrong.”

 

Same could not be said of Beale Street. Of course, it's fiction, so no one could complain about accuracy. Both films were perfectly willing to show the flaws in their Black protagonists. And the whole point of Green Book was that Shirley was on tour to challenge the Southern White establishment and their rules. But having said that, Beale Street embraced Blackness in a way Green Book didn't.

 

I won't repeat everything I said on another thread, but Green Book was a lot easier to sit through, and more entertaining, as a White person. Beale Street was a lot more challenging. I suspect that's why Green Book got more Oscar nods than Beale Street.

 

Same thing as Selma a few years ago. Both movies made a point to include kind Whites who took a stand for justice, or - in the case of Selma -gave their lives in service of the civil rights movements. But both movies also had overwhelmingly Black casts, and the main White characters that moved the action along were racists. Hollywood has yet to prove it can embrace a movie like that, either at the box office or at the Oscars.

 

None of which is a surprise. Seeing them close together, my emotional reactions were completely opposite. Green Book made me feel good, to the point of being saccharine: Let's hear it for White heroes! Beale Street made me want to crawl out of my White skin, because everything it portrayed about deep and systemic racism rang completely true.

 

If Green Book and Beale Street are now the book ends of what Hollywood puts out, that's progress.

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[tchm]

Oscars 2019 overlooks ‘Green Book,’ ‘Bohemian’ backlash

 

https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/oscars-2019-overlooks-green-book-bohemian-backlash/

 

That would be a yes, I guess.

 

It's not a bad thing that films that would have been cutting edge half a century ago (Guess Who's Coming To Dinner) or a generation ago (Driving Miss Daisy) are passé today.

 

I saw Green Book a week ago and If Beale Street Could Talk last night. It's noteworthy that the first got a Best Picture nomination, the second didn't.

 

The complaint about Green Book that I take the most seriously is this:

 

Shirley's own family condemned the film, saying filmmakers never reached out to them for accuracy during the making of the biopic. Nephew Edwin Shirley III told Shadow and Act that the depiction of his uncle, who had marched at Selma and was close friends with Nina Simone, being uncomfortable with his blackness as "just 100% wrong.”

 

Same could not be said of Beale Street. Of course, it's fiction, so no one could complain about accuracy. Both films were perfectly willing to show the flaws in their Black protagonists. And the whole point of Green Book was that Shirley was on tour to challenge the Southern White establishment and their rules. But having said that, Beale Street embraced Blackness in a way Green Book didn't.

 

I won't repeat everything I said on another thread, but Green Book was a lot easier to sit through, and more entertaining, as a White person. Beale Street was a lot more challenging. I suspect that's why Green Book got more Oscar nods than Beale Street.

 

Same thing as Selma a few years ago. Both movies made a point to include kind Whites who took a stand for justice, or - in the case of Selma -gave their lives in service of the civil rights movements. But both movies also had overwhelmingly Black casts, and the main White characters that moved the action along were racists. Hollywood has yet to prove it can embrace a movie like that, either at the box office or at the Oscars.

 

None of which is a surprise. Seeing them close together, my emotional reactions were completely opposite. Green Book made me feel good, to the point of being saccharine: Let's hear it for White heroes! Beale Street made me want to crawl out of my White skin, because everything it portrayed about deep and systemic racism rang completely true.

 

If Green Book and Beale Street are now the book ends of what Hollywood puts out, that's progress.

 

 

Oscars 2019 overlooks ‘Green Book,’ ‘Bohemian’ backlash

 

https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/oscars-2019-overlooks-green-book-bohemian-backlash/

 

That would be a yes, I guess.

 

It's not a bad thing that films that would have been cutting edge half a century ago (Guess Who's Coming To Dinner) or a generation ago (Driving Miss Daisy) are passé today.

 

I saw Green Book a week ago and If Beale Street Could Talk last night. It's noteworthy that the first got a Best Picture nomination, the second didn't.

 

The complaint about Green Book that I take the most seriously is this:

 

Shirley's own family condemned the film, saying filmmakers never reached out to them for accuracy during the making of the biopic. Nephew Edwin Shirley III told Shadow and Act that the depiction of his uncle, who had marched at Selma and was close friends with Nina Simone, being uncomfortable with his blackness as "just 100% wrong.”

 

Same could not be said of Beale Street. Of course, it's fiction, so no one could complain about accuracy. Both films were perfectly willing to show the flaws in their Black protagonists. And the whole point of Green Book was that Shirley was on tour to challenge the Southern White establishment and their rules. But having said that, Beale Street embraced Blackness in a way Green Book didn't.

 

I won't repeat everything I said on another thread, but Green Book was a lot easier to sit through, and more entertaining, as a White person. Beale Street was a lot more challenging. I suspect that's why Green Book got more Oscar nods than Beale Street.

 

Same thing as Selma a few years ago. Both movies made a point to include kind Whites who took a stand for justice, or - in the case of Selma -gave their lives in service of the civil rights movements. But both movies also had overwhelmingly Black casts, and the main White characters that moved the action along were racists. Hollywood has yet to prove it can embrace a movie like that, either at the box office or at the Oscars.

 

None of which is a surprise. Seeing them close together, my emotional reactions were completely opposite. Green Book made me feel good, to the point of being saccharine: Let's hear it for White heroes! Beale Street made me want to crawl out of my White skin, because everything it portrayed about deep and systemic racism rang completely true.

 

If Green Book and Beale Street are now the book ends of what Hollywood puts out, that's progress.

 

 

I guess it all comes down to how we view movies. Hard to do sometimes, but when I watch a movie, I try to divorce myself from everything else that`s going on outside the theater and focus entirely and solely on what`s up on that screen. As such, I enjoyed The Green Book tremendously. Just a simple straight forward story of two guys from completely different backgrounds who, at the end of the movie, realized they`re not so different after all. That`s it! And that it was presented with great cinematic skill, terrific acting, and entertainment value also contributed to a satisfying time at the movies. I refuse to feel guilty about having a good time at the movies. I prefer to do a deeper dissertation about race relations and other social issues going on in the world in another time and venue. One critic even implied there should have been more homoeroticism between the two leads. Seriously?

 

Saw Beale Street, too. Cinematically, I found it pretentious and left me cold and bored. Sorry.

Edited January 24, 2019 by tchm

[+ Avalon]

This movie was being discussed on the radio the other day. I never knew that there was such a book

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

[+ stevenkesslar]

Saw Beale Street, too. Sorry. Found it pretentious and left me cold and bored.

 

Nothing to feel sorry about. Like I said, Beale Street in particular is the kind of movie that is going to generate a lot of very different emotional reactions. I suspect the director had that in mind and made some artistic choices with perception gaps in mind.

 

The most obvious thing about perception is you actually have to see it to perceive it. So far Green Book has grossed $43 million, and Beale Street $11 million. That's not an apples to apples comparison, since Green Book opened in mid-November and Beale Street a month later. Green Book will probably get more business out of the Oscars, especially if it wins some awards. When it's all said and done, Green Book will gross a high multiple of what Beale Street grosses.

 

I didn't realize until the credits rolled on Green Book that Octavia Spencer was an Executive Producer. My immediate reaction was to wave a thumbs up to my moviegoing companion. Just that fact made me feel good, and it made total sense to me that given the way she's navigated Hollywood, someone like her would be behind it. She's a master at being able to tell stories that resonate in a way that gets White audiences to see the movie, in the first place, and leaves them feeling entertained.

 

http://legacy.shadowandact.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/GettyImages-1078450362.jpg

 

Here's what she said about the Shirley family controversy at the Golden Globes:

 

In the Globes' press room after the film won Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical, Shadow and Act asked the producers of the film that since the project means a lot to them and their families, what message did they have for the members of Dr. Shirley's family who disapproved of the film. (S&A also asked Mahershala Ali about the family's objections to the film, as well.)

 

After no one spoke up, the film's executive producer and Oscar-winning actress Octavia Spencer stepped forward, saying, “I'll take that one...falling on the sword here!" as she laughed.

 

She then stated, “You know what, I'm a little troubled that answering that question could cause them [the Shirley family] any more distress. So what I'd like to say in lieu of anything directly to the Shirley family is what it meant to me. Because I've been a part of four films from this era, and it was the first time I saw a person of color with agency. And I thought, ‘This is a guy I want to know, and this is a guy whose story needs to be out there for the young people who are still in the resistance.' So, for me, it was about the idea that there were people like Don Shirley in the '60s, and we never saw that on the film. That's what I took from it, and that's what I still take from it. I thank Pete and Nick and Mahershala and Viggo and all of the filmmakers for putting their hearts into it. So that's what I'd say to the Shirley family. He meant a lot to a lot of people, and I'm glad that we got to share that story.

 

https://shadowandact.com/green-book-criticism-golden-globes-octavia-spencer-response-shirley-family

 

Barry Jenkins has obviously chosen a different path, and it shows in the box office for his movies. You've got a sort of Black Romeo and Juliet that hits hard on racism and the flaws in the criminal justice system filtered through the eyes of a Black Gay Director. It doesn't get much edgier than that.

 

There's no right or wrong. Like I said, I like the fact that both of them are now able to put their perspectives out there, and see how people react.

Edited January 24, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[tchm]

Now that this movie has put the name Don Shirley in the public conciousness, I hope some Hollywood producer (Octavia Spencer, perhaps?) would think about a

companion movie all about Dr. Shirley's life. I think that would be a very interesting movie going experience.

Edited January 25, 2019 by tchm

[+ quoththeraven]

Oscars 2019 overlooks ‘Green Book,’ ‘Bohemian’ backlash

 

https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/oscars-2019-overlooks-green-book-bohemian-backlash/

 

That would be a yes, I guess.

 

It's not a bad thing that films that would have been cutting edge half a century ago (Guess Who's Coming To Dinner) or a generation ago (Driving Miss Daisy) are passé today.

 

I saw Green Book a week ago and If Beale Street Could Talk last night. It's noteworthy that the first got a Best Picture nomination, the second didn't.

 

The complaint about Green Book that I take the most seriously is this:

 

Shirley's own family condemned the film, saying filmmakers never reached out to them for accuracy during the making of the biopic. Nephew Edwin Shirley III told Shadow and Act that the depiction of his uncle, who had marched at Selma and was close friends with Nina Simone, being uncomfortable with his blackness as "just 100% wrong.”

 

Same could not be said of Beale Street. Of course, it's fiction, so no one could complain about accuracy. Both films were perfectly willing to show the flaws in their Black protagonists. And the whole point of Green Book was that Shirley was on tour to challenge the Southern White establishment and their rules. But having said that, Beale Street embraced Blackness in a way Green Book didn't.

 

I won't repeat everything I said on another thread, but Green Book was a lot easier to sit through, and more entertaining, as a White person. Beale Street was a lot more challenging. I suspect that's why Green Book got more Oscar nods than Beale Street.

 

Same thing as Selma a few years ago. Both movies made a point to include kind Whites who took a stand for justice, or - in the case of Selma -gave their lives in service of the civil rights movements. But both movies also had overwhelmingly Black casts, and the main White characters that moved the action along were racists. Hollywood has yet to prove it can embrace a movie like that, either at the box office or at the Oscars.

 

None of which is a surprise. Seeing them close together, my emotional reactions were completely opposite. Green Book made me feel good, to the point of being saccharine: Let's hear it for White heroes! Beale Street made me want to crawl out of my White skin, because everything it portrayed about deep and systemic racism rang completely true.

 

If Green Book and Beale Street are now the book ends of what Hollywood puts out, that's progress.

 

There is something fucked up about a movie whose Black character is the lead being filtered through his interaction with his bigoted white driver. Also the Green Book itself was a publication to guide Black people on what,establishments were open to them to allow them to travel safely through Jim Crow areas. So why does a movie bearing the name of a book to help Blacks avoid interacting with racist white people put a racist white man front and center?

 

As I understand it, Shirley's family objected to the depiction of the relationship between him and his driver as inaccurate. Since that's the focus of the movie, that seems irresponsible.

 

I agree that it's getting love because it has a Black character but leaves White audiences feeling all fuzzy. The whitewashing of history should itself be disqualifying irrespective of technical merits. Same should be true if Dances With Wolves came out now. (To be clear, I'm solely talking about Best Picture and screenplay, not acting or technical awards.)

[+ stevenkesslar]

The whitewashing of history should itself be disqualifying irrespective of technical merits.

 

First, I avoided saying some things earlier in this post because it may get this booted to the Politics section. The whole subject of the movie is race, so you can't talk about it without getting into things like race and White Supremacy. So if I get this booted to the politics section, sorry.

 

I already cited above a nephew of Shirley who said his uncle was proud of being Black and marched in Selma, and he thought the film didn't do that justice. I just went and found another article that has an even more scathing critique from a member of the Shirley family:

 

“My name is Carol Shirley Kimble. I’m the niece of Don Shirley, supposedly the subject of the movie The Green Book,” she said.

 

“There was no due diligence done to afford my family and my deceased uncle the respect of properly representing him, his legacy, his worth and the excellence in which he operated and the excellence in which he lived. It’s once again a depiction of a white man’s version of a Black man’s life. My uncle was an incredibly proud man and an incredibly accomplished man, as are the majority of people in my family. And to depict him as less than, and to depict him and take away from him and make the story about a hero of a white man for this incredibly accomplished Black man is insulting, at best.”

 

She continued, "I think to consistently see our stories and our Black icons filtered through the lens of a racist white person like Tony Lip does nothing to advance the understanding of Black history and only serves to perpetuate white supremacy.”

 

https://shadowandact.com/green-book-is-full-of-lies-dr-don-shirleys-family-speaks-out

 

Now, compare that to what Executive Producer Octavia Spencer says:

 

“You know what, I'm a little troubled that answering that question could cause them [the Shirley family] any more distress. So what I'd like to say in lieu of anything directly to the Shirley family is what it meant to me. Because I've been a part of four films from this era, and it was the first time I saw a person of color with agency. And I thought, ‘This is a guy I want to know, and this is a guy whose story needs to be out there for the young people who are still in the resistance.' So, for me, it was about the idea that there were people like Don Shirley in the '60s, and we never saw that on the film. That's what I took from it, and that's what I still take from it.

 

I actually think they are both right.

 

The script of "Green Book" was co-written by the son of Tony Lip, the driver. It was clearly told from Tony Lip's perspective. So like lots of Hollywood films, it is a story about racism told by Whites, where Whites end up being heroes. (Think Mississippi Burning). My point above is that movies made by Blacks from a Black perspective about the same subject (Selma, Beale Street) tend to make people more uncomfortable, and not do so well.

 

In this case, Green Book is a hybrid. As soon as I saw the credits and saw Octavia Spencer's name as an Executive Producer, I liked the movie even more, and it made me feel good. Whatever you think about the movie, the fact that a powerful Black woman was behind it makes a difference. I don't think White males like me get to tell Octavia Spencer she is racist, or wrong.

 

There may be questions about the scenes about fried chicken, which were obviously put in in part for laughs. But that scene right there is a clue about what Spencer had in mind, and what she's done in many of her movies. You could call Green Book "Racism For Dummies." Do we really have to be told that it is a stereotype to just assume that all Blacks like fried chicken? Yes, we do.

 

What's more certain is that his trip with Shirley affected Lip. As the movie depicts, Lip had been racist, using derogatory language and actions. But witnessing how Shirley was denied his rights and attacked made him change. "He didn’t like people being mistreated," Nick said about his father in an interview with Metro. "It changed his attitude. It changed the way he raised us, his attitude towards other people."

 

https://www.biography.com/news/don-shirley-tony-lip-friendship

 

I think that article is a good one to read, too. While the movie may have sold some aspects of Shirley's life short, there is no question that the movie portrays Shirley as the victim of racism, and it makes clear that the whole point of the trip through the South was an act of defiance on Shirley's part. It would have been better if they showed him marching in Selma. But, frankly, Tony Lip was not the kind of guy who would likely know or care about whether Don Shirley marched in Selma. So what we see in the movie is a different form of rebellion and a different approach to dealing with racism: Don Shirley's insistence that White people will take him seriously and let him play his music, masterfully, his way. I would argue the movie quietly makes fun of all these arrogant, stupid fucking White people. You will let me entertain you and play beautiful music for you, in a way none of you could ever do, but I can't eat in your fucking restaurants? You have to be kidding me. And we do see Shirley opening up Lip and making him less racist. By every account I've read, the relationship and the respect was real.

 

For better or worse, that is exactly what Octavia Spencer is doing in movies like The Help and Hidden Figures. Again, I'd argue that from the perspective of 2019, after we've actually elected a Black President, it's kind of like Racism For Dummies. You can argue whether it's good or bad.

 

Here's a fun fact that I think illustrates the point. For years I had a client in Louisiana who at one point admitted he had been a former KKK member. He was a lifelong Southern Democrat who still worked to get Southern Democrats (White conservative ones) elected. His children were all Republicans, and he was of course deeply closeted. He knew I was a rabid liberal and Obama supporter. In a way I was surprised he shared that information with me. But I think he was doing it sort of as an act of confession and repentance. He told me that his childhood was like The Help. And he certainly didn't feel proud of his White supremacist attitudes when he was a young man. So even though he was a conservative Southern Democrat who thought Obama was too liberal, I'm pretty sure that he was a lot less toxic than the younger version of him.

 

One thing that movies like Green Book and The Help do is allow conservatives to feel good about the fact that as a society, we are a lot less racist than we were 50 years ago. You can argue whether there is value in that. Again, I'll say it one more time. It's like Racism For Dummies. These films do internalize the idea that overt racism - not letting people vote, segregating them, making them sleep in second class hotels - is wrong.

 

I know a number of White conservatives who saw and liked movies like Green Book and The Help and Blind Side for exactly this reason. Simply by virtue of going to movies like these and liking them, they feel they are not racist. How could they be? They cheer and laugh and smile when the accomplished Black pianist or the brilliant female Black scientist wins. There is something to be said for that. I am not going to second guess what Octavia Spencer is trying to do in movies like this.

 

But I can also tell you that the same people who like The Help or Green Book are not going to be very good when it comes to talking about Black Lives Matter, or Obamacare, or the real racial struggles of today - not 50 years ago. The movies like Beale Street or Black KKKlansmen, made by Black Directors like Spike Lee or Barry Jenkins or Ava Duvernay, are going to be a lot more controversial. We've seen that with the Oscars. Selma and Duvernay were essentially snubbed, which showed clearly that there's still a problem. Jenkins won Best Movie over La La Land, and Spike Lee got his first Best Director nomination. So there's progress, if you measure it that way, but it's stop and start.

 

The reality is that Black movies made by Black people about the CURRENT problems of racism are going to be edgier and harder for a lot of White people to handle - precisely because they do put White people on the spot, and force them to look at the really evil shit White people have done to Black people, and are doing right now.

 

I don't think it's either/or. I think the voices of Octavia Spencer and Barry Jenkins should both be heard, and that it's a sign of progress that now Black men and women can be the Executive Producers and Directors telling the stories. If they choose to tell their stories in different ways, I don't have a problem with that. To use Spencer and Jenkins as examples, I respect what both are trying to do., Just like I respect what Don Shirley was trying to do, in his time.

Edited February 1, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[+ quoththeraven]

Spike Lee should at least have been nominated for Do the Right Thing.

[+ stevenkesslar]

'Green Book' Is A Poorly Titled White Savior Film

 

I keep circling back to Lip's racism because it baffles me that in 2018 Hollywood is still in the business of not only humanizing racists but letting racists like Lip tell stories about Black people. Because Green Book is not just about Dr. Shirley through Lip's eyes. It's also about the everyday, non-prodigy Black people that Lip and Dr. Shirley encounter on their journey.

 

https://shadowandact.com/green-book-film-review-white-savior/

 

Brooke Obie Speaks With Colman Domingo On The Beautiful Blackness of ‘Beale Street’

 

There is no other movie like Barry Jenkins’ genius If Beale Street Could Talk. This faithful film adaptation of James Baldwin’s iconic novel of the same name portrays the beauty of Blackness in all of its glory. In Barry’s Beale Street, Blackness means more than just oppression; Blackness is love, a glow that envelopes a family and two lovers in particular, Tish (Kiki Layne) and Fonny (Stephan James). Despite racism, sexism, violence against women, mass incarceration and patriarchy, this family–led by Regina King as the mom, Sharon, Colman Domingo as the father Joseph and Teyonah Parris as the sister Ernestine–leans into each other and finds rest, relief and security.

 

Above it all is the master of this choreopoem, Barry Jenkins, wielding his camera in defense of Blackness, in the name of Blackness, for the love of Blackness. Jenkins’ camera holds on Tish’s face as she looks at her love, it highlights her thick Black afro hair, her luminous Black skin, her Black mouth spreading in a full-teeth smile, lapping up screen time until Jenkins is sure we see the beauty of her Black joy in its purest form.

 

http://www.brookeobie.com/blog/brooke-obie-speaks-with-colman-domingo-on-the-beautiful-blackness-of-beale-street/

 

http://www.brookeobie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/41034_142640259109914_386791_n-300x165.jpg

 

http://www.brookeobie.com/about/who-is-brooke-obie/

 

I thought those two reviews were an interesting compare and contrast about two very different ways to make a film in 2019.

 

Brooke Obie, who wrote both reviews, can probably be described as a Don Shirley of our times. An accomplished author and writer and artist.

 

I think it's fair to say that it was as painful for her to sit through Green Book as it was for me to sit through Beale Street. But for very different reasons. The painful thing about Beale Street for me was that it felt different, but true. The painful thing about Green Book for Obie is that it felt different, but false.

 

Having said that, I put the word "different" in for a reason. Honestly, I don't know enough about Black life in America in 2019, let alone when Beale Street's fictional story was set, to know whether it's true or not. But I think it's true. It's a film made by and for Blacks, to celebrate Blackness, if you take Obie's word for it. But part of the point is: I can't understand what I haven't experienced. The events and lives in that movie are not something I've experienced in any deep, meaningful, and consistent way. I appreciate the fact that by watching the movie, I got a window into something I haven't really experienced myself.

 

I think it's fair to say some of that is going on for Obie as well. In an interview in that review of Green Book with Mahershala Ali, he points out the same things Octavia Spencer did in the quote of her I put earlier in the thread. Ali says Green Book is not a White savior movie. Don Shirley knew what he was doing. He hired Tony Lip, and understood exactly what he was getting: a thuggish White guy who was casually racist. Shirley chose to go down South. He could have fired Lip at any point. He was Gay.

 

So the idea of a Black Gay man traveling around the Deep South in that era is kind of asking for trouble, and Shirley knew it. In fact, that was the point. It was an act of intentional quiet rebellion, or of consciousness raising, on Shirley's part. Whether there was more artistic license than there should have been, about how Shirley went into White bars and needed to be "saved" when he could have gone into Black bars that were safe, I don't know. But it all did reinforce the idea that Shirley, to use Spencer's word, had "agency," and he was trying to push boundaries and educate White people. And he was also living as if he was every bit as deserving and entitled as White people that he was actually much smarter than.

 

I do feel like Shirley's family is being a little ahistorical, too. He did not have the choices Brooke Obie has today. And that is actually part of the point, also. The racism portrayed in Green Book is historical. Shirley did want to make a difference, and create change, through his art. The movie shows him doing that. So to say that all the movie proves is that Shirley perhaps made Lip "a little less racist" seems like it actually is selling Don Shirley's choices short - in the context of the choices he actually had in that era.

 

As one of the articles I posted said, Lip told his son the movie should not be made without Shirley's permission. Shirley granted it, but said he didn't want it made until after he died. I think it was an inexcusable fuck up that Lip's son did not consult Shirley's survivor's - duh! If anything, I would argue it underscores why Obie's fundamental point is right. Yes, White people still are perfectly happy to write stories about Black people without making a concerted effort to find out more about the Black protagonist, from the perspective of his Black survivors. All these criticisms are spot on.

 

I'll try to make a related pointed as non-politically as I can. This reminds me of the "superpredator" debate. If you put that word in the context of the 1990's, it means something different. It is not hard to find Black leaders in the 1990's calling for a crackdown on crime. Black leaders supported and called for that effort. They may not have used the word "superpredator." But the underlying policies drew a lot of Black support at the time.

 

From the context of 2019, especially for people Brooke Obie's age, it looks a hell of a lot different. And young Blacks who find the word offensive are not wrong. But I think there is a time warp thing going on there.

 

The fact that movies like "Green Book" are being trashed by some Blacks, just like politicians who used the word "superpredator" back in the 1990's were trashed in 2016, is a fundamentally good thing, I think. To me, it's an important cultural debate. And it is a positive milestone that these days, writers like Brooke Obie can say, "Uh uh. This is no longer good enough."

 

Having said that, my only word of warning to Brooke Obie would be this: I hope you are prepared for the consequences of what you are saying. Because if you want to attack a liberal woman for using the word "superpredator," you might get a conservative man instead. And if you want every movie to be like "Beale Street," White people might not want to see them.

 

I'm not trying to blame Obie in any way for how she feels. My point is that other Black artists - Octavia Spencer, Mahershala Ali - feel differently. Nobody is completely right or wrong. I think it's an important cultural debate.

Edited February 1, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[tchm]

" ... And if you want every movie to be like "Beale Street," White people might not want to see them.

 

Based on its box office grosses, seem like Black people do not want to see it either.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Based on its box office grosses, seem like Black people do not want to see it either.

 

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ifbealestreetcouldtalk.htm Beale Street $13 million as of Feb 3 2019

 

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=moonlight2016.htm Moonlight $28 million

 

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=greenbook.htm Green Book $56 million as of Feb 3 2019

 

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hiddenfigures.htm Hidden Figures $170 million

 

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marvel2017b.htm Black Panther $700 million

 

The numbers tell the story.

 

I am pretty sure all 5 films would be viewed as successful, both from an artistic perspective and in terms of making more than they cost to produce and market. Barry Jenkins (Moonlight and Beale Street) is definitely the edgiest Black Gay boy in the room. No surprise that he is making films for a more limited audience. Most people just want to be entertained., probably.

 

Part of the question is whether Hollywood should be about making art films that reflect and attempt to change the culture, or should be about entertainment, with maybe some underlying cultural messages. Like I said, "Racism 4 Dummies."

 

The good news now, from my perspective, is "all of the above."

 

The very fact that this kind of debate is happening about these types of films is good news.

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[+ Cash4Trash]

" ... And if you want every movie to be like "Beale Street," White people might not want to see them.

 

Based on its box office grosses, seem like Black people do not want to see it either.

 

Beale Street is still in wide release and these are not final numbers. If Regina King wins best supporting the movie will get a bounce.

Blindspotting, Sorry To Bother You and BlacKkKlansman were also released this year. An incredible number of films about the black experience in 2019.

[+ quoththeraven]

Also it's a little obnoxious for non-black people to be opining about what Black people want to see and why. Otherwise, what Steven said about art vs. entertainment.

[tchm]

I know. Racist, right? Ho hum.

Edited February 5, 2019 by tchm

[samhexum]

If Regina King wins best supporting the movie will get a bounce.

 

Speaking of Regina King and things that bounce...

 

For Joel Embiid, it was simply the type of play he's always going to try to make. For award-winning actress Regina King, it was a moment she won't soon forget.

 

King was sitting in the front row at Madison Square Garden when thePhiladelphia 76ers 7-foot center came charging her way in pursuit of a loose ball during the third quarter.

 

Embiid leaped into the stands, clearing King, but crashed feet-first into the MSG Network statistician working next to broadcaster Mike Breen.

 

"It's good that I saved her life I guess, but someone else had to, like, take that," Embiid said, referring to the statistician. "I'm sorry about that."

 

King, perhaps best known to sports fans as Rod Tidwell's wife in "Jerry Maquire," won a Golden Globe last month for her role in If Beale Street Could Talk and is nominated for an Academy Award for the same role. She tweeted her thanks that she emerged unscathed.

 

Asked why he didn't pull up with the Sixers holding a 15-point lead at the time, Embiid said that simply isn't his nature.

 

"I only know one way to play and that's to play hard and compete," said Embiid, who added he'll do that 100 percent of the time.

 

Even if coach Brett Brown wishes Embiid would approach things differently. Asked his thoughts on the play, Brown was matter of fact.

 

"Just like I think our owners and our fans back home were thinking," he said. "You respect his aggression, and his passion, but you don't want that. I say that out of love and care. It's stuff you hope to avoid."

 

The statistician somehow stayed in the game. "I didn't see him but I know he's going to feel it tomorrow,'' said teammate Ben Simmons.

 

"I haven't done that since my rookie season -- and it just happened," Embiid said of his leap.

 

[tchm]

Not surprised it got Best Picture. Well deserved IMO. Would have given it Editing also.

[MikeBiDude]

Spike Lee sour grapes....what a piss poor attitude

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/spike-lee-reacts-green-books-oscars-win-1190271

[Kenny]

“Green Book,” a feel-good movie about the comedy-laced struggles of a white bigot to accept the humanity of an exceptional Other in the apartheid American South, wins Best Picture.

 

As today’s LA Times put it in a blistering column by their film critic (who is not white): The worst movie to win since “Crash.”

 

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-oscars-green-book-worst-best-picture-winner-20190224-story.html

[Kenny]

I thoroughly enjoyed it.

LOL!

[+ WilliamM]

The Green Book and Fighting with My Family share billing where I live. So I could see both films this week.

[Kenny]

Three of the four characters played in the Oscar-winning acting categories are homos. So there’s that.

[playwrestler]

The letters to the editor after the LA Times article are great to read. Love debate!

[+ stevenkesslar]

Spike Lee sour grapes....what a piss poor attitude

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/spike-lee-reacts-green-books-oscars-win-1190271

 

Thanks for posting that article. And now for the opposing point of view. (Oops. I see @Kenny beat me to it while I was typing my diatribe.)

 

I wasn't too happy that Green Book won, either. Although I did really enjoy the film. I didn't think it was Best Picture of the year. Or anywhere close. I guess the positive thing to say about it is that it's better than Driving Miss Daisy.

 

Seeing that video of Spike Lee in the article above was a nice way to put a cap on it for me. I'm not sure I'd agree with him that he was being gracious. It's more like he was being just gracious enough.

 

One of my favorite moments in the awards was when Samuel Jackson read his name, and Lee jumped up in Jackson's arms. I didn't know til I read that interview above that they were college buddies. It was definitely a moment when somebody who deserved recognition got it. As Spike Lee said, in Do The Right Thing he talked about gentrification and global warming. We're still talking about that. Who's talking about Driving Miss Daisy?

 

The other thing in that presser that I liked is that Lee credited #OscarsSoWhite and the former Academy head, who opened up the Academy "to look like the rest of the world." As he noted, three Black women won Oscars.

 

It's also a good thing that Spike Lee is behind the camera, rather than in front of it. The negative thing I'll say about him is that his speech was almost incomprehensible. It obviously was the only really overtly political statement of the night. I'm fine with that. But it's an awards ceremony about acting, for Christ's sake. He should have had Jackson read his speech and add the word "fuck" a lot!

 

I thought we beat all the controversies with Green Book to death earlier in this thread, but I just learned in the last few days there are two more. There's the Director, Farrelly, flashing his penis decades ago. And the writer, Tony Lip's son, endorsed the fact-free claim about Muslims cheering on 9/11, until he was challenged and then deleted the tweet and apologized. Green Book somehow managed to embody every offensive hot spot of 2019, from gross male sexual behavior to white saviors to Muslim bashing. Woo hoo!

 

None of this is new, of course. There's a long tradition in Hollywood of forgiving people like Casey Affleck and Mel Gibson and lots of others, as long as they don't go too far over the line, and as long as they apologize. In fact, the Kevin Hart controversy even threw that whole thing about apologizing for homophobia in, too.

 

All in all, I'd actually give Hollywood an A- and say it served its function pretty well this year: of entertaining us, and of being an informal arbiter of cultural norms. This actually is a time of huge cultural conflict. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the conflict seeped into the movies, and the Academy. I'm glad they didn't let a Black guy who wouldn't offer a sincere apology for lots of homophobic slurs host the show.

 

And I can actually make a good argument for why Green Book SHOULD have won. Part of the role of Hollywood, I think, is to smooth things out and bring our culture together. And the driving analogy actually fits pretty well into how they do that. There's the part about looking into the rear view mirror, and smoothing things out as they pass behind you. And there's the part about looking out of the front mirror, and seeing what is right ahead of you.

 

Green Book, like Driving Miss Daisy, was mostly a rear view mirror movie. Those movies are easier to make. And they are unifying. Recall that at the Golden Globes, it won as Best Comedy, not Best Drama. Part of the point was to turn it into something we could all look back and even laugh at. We can all agree NOW, in 2019, that the kind of virulent racism practiced in the South in Dr. Shirley's days was bad. Woo hoo!

 

The "tell" that Green Book was probably going to win was having Rep. John Lewis introduce the film. I actually thought that was extremely gracious. It did speak to what is right and wrong about the film. People who would never agree with Rep. Lewis's political agenda in 2019 at least now agree that people like him shouldn't have their heads beaten in by White Supremacist cops. There's a form of progress in that.

 

Black KKKlansman was partly a rear view mirror movie, too. Except the difference was that Spike Lee intentionally tied it very clearly to what is happening right now, and where we are headed. Barry Jenkins did the same thing with If Beale Street Could Talk. So Lee and Jenkins and Jordan Peale are mostly interested in looking out the front mirror, and talking about the challenges ahead of us. Spike Lee made that explicit in his sort of incomprehensible speech. Of course that's going to stir up way more controversy.

 

So I feel like Spike Lee. I'd rather have a film that's looking out of the front window win. But I understand why the rear view mirror movie won. I enjoyed it, and I can be gracious enough about it. Following on what I said above, if the range in the Oscars now is from movies like Green Book being the backward looking ones to movies like If Beale Street Could Talk and Black KKKlansman and Get Out and Moonlight being the forward and edgy one, that's not a bad place to be.

 

As Spike Lee noted, in 1990 he wasn't even nominated for Best Director. This year he was nominated. He lost to a Director making a film in Spanish about growing up in Mexico. And he won for writing a brilliant script. That's not a bad night for Spike.

 

Actually, I was hoping Black Panther would win Best Picture. It wasn't really the Best Picture of the year, either. But it avoided all the overtly political controversies of some of the other films. It was a huge blockbuster, and it broke huge new ground in being a Black-driven blockbuster that unified and entertained everyone. Giving it the Best Picture Oscar would have been a fitting symbol, because as a society I actually do feel that's something about where we are right now that we can all feel good about.

Edited February 25, 2019 by stevenkesslar

[MikeBiDude]

Thanks for posting that article. And now for the opposing point of view. (Oops. I see @Kenny beat me to it will I was typing my diatribe.)

 

I wasn't too happy that Green Book won either, although I did really enjoy the film. I didn't think it was Best Picture of the year. Or anywhere close. I guess the positive thing to say about it is that it's better than Driving Miss Daisy.

 

Seeing that video of Spike Lee in the article above was a nice way to put a cap on it for me. I'm not sure I'd agree with him that he was being gracious. It's more like he was being just gracious enough.

 

One of my favorite moments in the awards was when Samuel Jackson read his name, and Lee jumped up in Jackson's arms. I didn't know til I read that interview above that they were college buddies. It was definitely a moment when somebody who deserved recognition got it. As Spike Lee said, in Do The Right Thing he talked about gentrification and global warming. We're still talking about that. Who's talking about Driving Miss Daisy?

 

The other thing in that presser that I liked is that Lee credited #OscarsSoWhite and the former Academy head, who opened up the Academy "to look like the rest of the world." As he noted, three Black women won Oscars.

 

It's also a good thing that Spike Lee is behind the camera, rather than in front of it. The negative thing I'll say about him is that his speech was almost incomprehensible. It obviously was the only really overtly political statement of the night. I'm fine with that. But it's an awards ceremony about acting, for Christ's sake. He should have had Jackson read his speech and add the word "fuck" a lot!

 

I thought we beat all the controversies with Green Book to death earlier in this thread, but I just learned in the last few days there are two more. There's the Director, Farrelly, flashing his penis decades ago. And the writer, Tony Lip's son, endorsed the fact-free claim about Muslims cheering on 9/11, until he was challenged and then deleted the tweet and apologized. Green Book somehow managed to embody every offensive hot spot of 2019, from gross male sexual behavior to white saviors to Muslim bashing. Woo hoo!

 

None of this is new, of course. There's a long tradition in Hollywood of forgiving people like Casey Affleck and Mel Gibson and lots of others, as long as they don't go too far over the line, and as long as they apologize. In fact, the Kevin Hart controversy even threw that whole thing about apologizing for homophobia in, too.

 

All in all, I'd actually give Hollywood an A- and say it served its function pretty well this year: of entertaining us, and of being an informal arbiter of cultural norms. This actually is a time of huge cultural conflict. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the conflict seeped into the movies, and the Academy. I'm glad they didn't let a Black guy who wouldn't offer a sincere apology for lots of homophobic slurs host the show.

 

And I can actually make a good argument for why Green Book SHOULD have won. Part of the role of Hollywood, I think, is to smooth things out and bring our culture together. And the driving analogy actually fits pretty well into how they do that. There's the part about looking into the rear view mirror, and smoothing things out as they pass behind you. And there's the part about looking out of the front mirror, and seeing what is right ahead of you.

 

Green Book, like Driving Miss Daisy, was mostly a rear view mirror movie. Those movies are easier to make. And they are unifying. Recall that at the Golden Globes, it won as Best Comedy, not Best Drama. Part of the point was to turn it into something we could all look back and even laugh at. We can all agree NOW, in 2019, that the kind of virulent racism practiced in the South in Dr. Shirley's days was bad. Woo hoo!

 

Black KKKlansman was partly a rear view mirror movie, too. Except the difference was that Spike Lee intentionally tied it very clearly to what is happening right now, and where we are headed. Barry Jenkins did the same thing with If Beale Street Could Talk. So Lee and Jenkins and Jordan Peale are mostly interested in looking out the front mirror, and talking about the challenges ahead of us. Spike Lee made that explicit in his sort of incomprehensible speech.

 

So I feel like Spike Lee. I'd rather have a film that's looking out of the front mirror win. But I understand why the rear view mirror movie won. I enjoyed it, and I can be gracious enough about it. Following on what I said above, if the range in the Oscars now is from movies like Green Book being the backward looking ones to movies like If Beale Street Could Talk and Black KKKlansman and Get Out and Moonlight being the forward and edgy one, that's not a bad place to be.

 

As Spike Lee noted, in 1990 he wasn't even nominated for Best Director. This year he was nominated. He lost to a Director making a film in Spanish about growing up in Mexico. And he won for writing a brilliant script. That's not a bad night for Spike.

 

Actually, I was hoping Black Panther would win Best Picture. It wasn't really the Best Picture of the year, either. But it avoided all the overtly political controversies of some of the other films. It was a huge blockbuster, and it broke huge new ground in being a Black-driven blockbuster that unified and entertained everyone. Giving it the Best Picture Oscar would have been a fitting symbol, because as a society I actually do feel that's something about where we are right now that we can all feel good about.

Your and @Kenny ’s replies don’t make his face-making-try-and-walk-out-off-show any less disrespectful to his fellow artists.

 

I agree on your (and Spike’s) comments about the movie itself.