With summer approaching, I'm hoping to get my schedule back to the old one, which I honestly preferred, quite frankly, as it allowed for me to write on Monday/Wednesday/Friday, instead of just two days a week, but what are you gonna do? The best I can say to fans of my other stuff is to hang in there. Rest assured, when I return to the older stuff, I'll trumpet it from the hills on social media.
Until then, I keep seeing newer movies, and I continue to want to review them, so it's not as if I'm not continuing to review stuff- it just might not be the stuff some of my fans want to see. But we'll get there eventually, I promise. 😉
I was a little hesitant to watch this one, let alone review it, given how divided people were about it on the whole, with some calling it a typical white person's revisionist history about the black experience of the 60's (and in general) and lambasting it for playing fast and loose with the facts, as it is based on a true story. Meanwhile, the film cleaned up around awards season, including landing the big one: Best Picture at the Oscars.
As someone who picked BlacKkKlansman as my favorite movie of 2018, you can imagine how I felt about that. I grew up a massive Spike Lee fan, and though I typically end up watching a lot of the Oscar nominees eventually, oftentimes, it can be a chore, feeling more like homework than an enjoyable watch.
Granted, it's not as if Lee himself can't be a bit preachy, but in the case of BK, he managed to be as entertaining as he was informative, like the best films based on true stories are. But I can't say I blame him for being upset about being out-shined by what appeared- on paper, at least- as a sort of role reversal of Driving Mrs. Daisy. This time it's the white guy driving the rich black guy around! That's progress, right?
That said, if there's one thing I hate, in regards to movie reviewers- or would-be movie reviewers, of which there are a lot more in the internet age- it's passing judgment on a film that one hasn't even seen. (I get into it in closer detail in my review of Tully here.) As such, I wanted to see it and make my own mind up about it myself, thank you very much.
As it happened, I was home over the weekend, and had the opportunity to see it with my mom, who tends to be oblivious to that sort of internet fervor, as she only uses the internet to pay bills and email and the like, not keep up to date on... well, everything, like I do. This put me in the unique position to get a review of the film that wasn't prejudged, at least not the way Green Book typically is. She knew it'd won the Oscar, but beyond that, not much else.
So, spoiler alert: she basically loved it. No shocker there- it seems like the film's most ardent supporters are indeed of the older demo variety. In her case, it certainly wasn't a situation where she missed the "good old days" or whatever, or that she could pat herself on the back for how far we've come as a society. If anything, she'd probably, like myself, argue the exact opposite, given how things are at the moment in Trumplandia. (Now you know where I get it from.)
No, if anything, she appreciated how little the film actually did white-wash things, pun definitely intended. And it's true- the film doesn't at all back away from how ugly things were back then. As tempting is it is to say the more things change, the more they say the same, at least African-Americans can stay in whatever hotels they want and use the regular bathroom like anyone now, so there's that.
As you might be aware, the film's title refers to the real-life Green Book, which was something I admittedly wasn't aware of until this film came out, so points for educating me before I even saw the film. Of course, it's no surprise that's the case, given that schools- especially in the South, where I live- tend to downplay such things in retrospect. I basically got, like most Southern kids, an abbreviated version of the truth at best.
So, credit where it's due for that, right up front. In addition, despite some people's outright dismissal of the film as soft-pedaling the reality of the times, it actually doesn't, really. It also doesn't hide the fact that the main character, Frank "Tony Lip" Vallelonga (Viggo Mortensen), starts out pretty damn racist, to the point of being dubious of his wife being home alone when two black repairmen come over to fix stuff, and even going so far as to throw away the glasses they drank from when she offers them something to drink.
Tony is definitely is a walking stereotype of Italian machismo, and the very definition of politically incorrect. So, as you might guess, when he's hired to serve as the personal driver for Dr. Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali), a rich black classical music pianist with highfalutin ways, things do not go well, at least at first. I'm sure the older crowd got a kick out of Tony's decidedly un-PC ways, especially given how stringent things have gotten in this day and age.
And, to be honest, so did I, really. Truth be told, I've about had it up to here with all the SJWs and moral policing that's been going on as of late- in many ways, that's precisely what led us to this decidedly unfortunate period of time we now find ourselves in. In the past, it's not as if people weren't still fucking up, but at least we could laugh about it, thanks to stand-up comedy and talk shows and the like, and even if things got a bit blue, no one complained that much.
Nowadays, if you even step slightly out of line, there's an entire army of assholes out there at the ready to call you on it, and even go so far as to demand an apology, even if it doesn't directly affect them personally. That pisses me off to no end, and it ticks me off even more to know that it's exactly that sort of elitist nonsense that led to where we are now, and that most liberals don't get that.
President Voldemort may be wrong about- well, most everything, really- but on one count, he was in the ballpark: there are indeed "bad people" on both sides. Granted, that most decidedly does NOT include the Neo-Nazi side, ever, but you know what I mean- some liberals are definitely part of the problem, not part of the solution, and when they jump all down someone's throat for even the smallest slight, it's annoying AF.
So, oddly enough, it was actually kind of refreshing to see someone be unfiltered in a movie once again, even if my mother and I were both sensible enough to get that we don't necessarily need more of that sort of thing in our lives for real. It's a fun place to visit, in other words, but we certainly wouldn't want to live there, as it were.
Not everybody does get that, which is part of the problem, but what we do need is a little more levity, which is why I think we need to laugh more than ever. It's why I tend to veer more towards news shows with a more comedic slant (i.e. The Daily Show, The Jim Jefferies Show, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver) instead of "straight" news, as it were.
It's also why I think that an occasional un-PC comedy never hurt anyone. So long as people get that we're laughing at ourselves more than anything- which admittedly not everyone does- then it's all good. I used to live with a guy whose GF would always scoff at my watching The Colbert Report. "Why do you watch this crap?" she vented, typically before leaving the room in a huff.
I soon realized that she didn't get that it was satire, not the real deal. Anyone who knows me knows that I wouldn't watch the likes of Bill O'Reilly or Alex Jones if my life depended on it. Colbert was obviously poking fun at those sort of conservative blowhards, something he continues to do with much success to this day, although I do miss his former "Colbert" character, admittedly.
And in a way, that's sort of the problem- as a nation, we've kind of lost our touch with nuance. It's either one thing or the other- my way or the highway- there's no room for anything in between, and there used to be. It used to be if you didn't like something, you simply didn't watch it, listen to it or read it or whatever. We've become a country of outrage, and it's gotten so bad that even the rest of the world think many of us have lost our damn minds.
Who can blame them, when what we're known best for these days is a moronic president that separates families, puts kids in cages, wants to abolish Obama Care just because it's called that (even though he has nothing valid to replace it with) and basically undo every good thing Obama did in general, even if its counterproductive to, you know, our own well-being as humans, just because Obama hurt his widdle feelings once upon a time.
Well, that, and the fact that he's precisely the kind of old-school racist for whom Green Book is a tribute to the real "good old days," when people knew their place, and whites ruled supreme. People like him don't get that there's no going back to that, and, if anything, white supremacy is on its way out sooner than later, and good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. I think deep down, they know it, and that's why they're being so damn cruel. Cornered animals have a tendency to lash out.
So, given all that, I can see why Green Book rubbed some people the wrong way on general principle- after all, it's a lovingly rendered tribute to the way things "used to be." But, like I said, it's not as if they soft-pedal things. Tony says and does some iffy stuff throughout, from lecturing a black man on fried chicken- which we're obviously meant to laugh at- to paying off cops to look the other way when it comes to Dr. Shirley's proclivities. Shirley is gay- a true double whammy back then- but it still is to a certain extent, especially in the black community.
That said, though the film is ostensibly the tale of Tony's journey to being "woke," I wasn't really offended by it on the whole. Sure, there are some questionable scenes, and, to be sure, Tony's given to being un-PC, but so what? People aren't perfect, and neither is Hollywood. I've no doubt the film was made with the best of intentions, even if some missteps were made along the way. It happens.
I also find it suspect that Shirley's family conveniently came out to bitch about the way Dr. Shirley was portrayed here right around award season. I mean, it's not as if Ali's carefully-considered portrayal here- which rightfully won him an Oscar, BTW- is even remotely offensive. He does mention being somewhat estranged with his family, but that's not surprising, given that he was a traveling musician- if anything, that's sort of par for the course.
Also, it may well be Shirley's family's guilty conscience speaking. After all, like I said, it wasn't exactly commonplace for homosexuality to be accepted back then- or, like I said, even now. As such, it's more than a little likely that, if they were estranged, that might have had more than a little to do with it, and that may be the real reason some of them are crying foul now- guilt can be a bitch, especially if there's nothing to be done about it in retrospect.
It's also worth noting that Shirley's family isn't in control of his estate- he tellingly left it to a friend- a white friend, I might add. He did make sure his family was “taken care of,” but still- that must have stung that he felt compelled to put control of his legacy in the hands of an outsider.
I'm sure Shirley's family probably never expected that there would be a glossy Hollywood film about him in their future, and, according to the filmmakers, at least, they weren't too interested in helping ensure his story was told properly, so the filmmakers were left to their own devices. So, it seems like crying over spilled milk to me. It's a little too late to complain after the fact, you know? I mean, if you're that upset, make your own damn movie.
Besides, like I said, it's not as if the film isn't completely sympathetic to Dr. Shirley, even when he does something dubious, like hooking up with a white guy at the local YMCA, when he knows good and well it's asking for trouble. (Which could be completely made up, I realize.) As with Tony, he's allowed to show his faults, and to learn from them, just as Tony does. That's kind of the point of the movie- the two learn from each other, not just Tony learning from Dr. Shirley.
In a way, I guess that's Dr. Shirley's family's real point of contention: the very idea that their esteemed family member could learn anything from someone like Tony, who they claim he barely knew, much less that they were they lifelong friends, as the film claims.
I don't know the real truth, but what I do know is that Tony's family (one of whom co-wrote the script) had taped interviews with Shirley himself and letters to draw from to corroborate their version of the story. If, like Shirley's family claim, the two barely knew each other, then they should prove it with stuff to back it up, as the filmmakers did here.
All I know is that it's not like the film plays favorites with any one character. Tony is absolutely portrayed as a racist early on, and only later learns to accept Dr. Shirley, once he gets a better idea of what life's like for him, especially in regards to going on tour, especially in the South- and Shirley does have his reasons for going there in the first place.
Likewise, Shirley seems to be fairly portrayed here- he's not without faults, but, if anything, he comes off a hell of a lot better than Tony does on the whole, and like I said, Tony's own family did the writing honors here.
The one truly valid complaint that does hold true is that the film does indeed adhere to the whole "white savior" trope, which is to say, a movie in which a white person "saves" a non-white person from some unfortunate circumstance- hence "white savior."
Director and co-writer Peter Farrelly said he was well-aware of said stereotype and sought to avoid it by having both characters be imperfect and learn from each other, rather than the white guy "saving" the black guy.
While he doesn't entirely succeed- after all, there are several scene in which Tony does precisely that, i.e. the scene in which he rescues Dr. Shirley from being roughed up by some rednecks, or the one in which he pays off some cops none too happy about a black guy being driven around by a white guy in "their" state, particularly after dark- Farrelly doesn't entirely fail at it, either. The end result is imperfect, but I wasn't particularly offended, either.
Of course, that's just me (and my mom, for that matter), so I fully sympathize with those who were, most of all those within the African-American community, who I completely get being more than a little miffed that a story like this was being filtered through a white perspective, and was written and directed by white people.
To be fair, though, the film was executive produced by several notable African-Americans, including actress Octavia Spencer and Kwame Parker (Kill Bill), so it's not without some cred in that department, either, so there's that.
But forget about all of that, because my bottom-line job as a reviewer is to say whether or not a film is entertaining, not wade into all of this political stuff, really. And on that count, I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it, and believe me, my feelers were up, given how much this film's reputation preceded it. It's no BlacKkKlansman, to be sure, and it certainly wouldn't have topped my Best Of list had I seen it sooner, but it might have at least made the list, I suppose, so that's something.
So, yeah, my advice is to ignore the hype and backlash and just ask yourself a simple question: does this seem like something I might enjoy? If not, you probably won't. But even if you go in with some preconceived notions, like I admittedly did, you might be surprised at how well-done it is. Who knew the writer/director heretofore best known for putting Ben Stiller's jizz in Cameron Diaz' hair (as he did in There's Something About Mary) had it in him?
Check it out- but tread carefully... 😑
No comments:
Post a Comment