Skip to main content

If people don't like the way I talk, they can go take a shit.

Green Book
(2018)

(SPOILERS) It’s understandable that there’s been a backlash against the backlash against Green Book (most recently evidenced by its Producers Guild Awards win for best film), as whatever its failures in avoiding the standard Hollywood tropes for addressing race issues, when you drill down to its essence, it’s a good story well told.

It would probably be a lot easier on Green Book if it weren’t getting this attention, such that there’d be less of a spotlight on the imperatives it’s failing to meet. And of that awards conversation, yes, it’s a very likeable piece of entertainment, but it shouldn’t really be on Best Picture lists (for that matter, none of this year’s Oscar nominees are exactly jostling for greatness, albeit I’ve yet to see Vice…)

But, being that it is, it’s easy to see why it’s been recognised as something of a reverse Driving Miss Daisy, which infamously won the Best Picture Oscar in a year when Do the Right Thing wasn’t even nominated (this year, we finally have Spike Lee and his movie nominated; it’s just a shame it’s quite poor). I’m not about to defend Driving Miss Daisy (I’d have given the statuette to any of the other nominees that year first, by a considerable margin), but it’s interesting to see how the characterisation of Green Book in the same manner – a movie set in an earlier time and also a movie that is essentially of an earlier time of the movies – has gone to indict the audience itself in the intervening thirty years; just professing to like the film (relatively) unreservedly can be construed as a political statement, even if it just means singling oneself out as ignorant of the surrounding issues.

Because Green Book undeniably carries with it the old concerns of a white filmmaker assuming the licence to hold forth on issues of race while charging headfirst into subject matter that conveys both the “Magical Negro” trope (Dr Don Shirley, played by Mahershala Ali, transforms the ingrained prejudice of Viggo Mortensen’s Tony Lip) and the “White Saviour” (Tony in turn protects Don and teaches him about “real” black people, finally welcoming the lonely soul into the bosom of his family). Like Driving Miss Daisy before it, it’s identified as a film about racism for white people (so that would be me), a comforting (‘60s set) period piece detached from how such issues transcribe to the immediacy of today’s world. Like Kentucky Fried Chicken, it’s comfort food.

Another recent Best Picture Oscar nominee, Hidden Figures, was also couched in the comforting distance of history and came replete with a smugly patronising air in its handling of racism and sexism. One might suggest it’s every bit as much a film about racism aimed at white audience (albeit, a white female audience), but it mostly avoided the kind of brickbats Green Book has been subjected to, perhaps because its calling card was empowerment (with three black protagonists) whereas Green Book is instantly mired in what are considered outmoded devices. Which might suggest it’s less important how well you tell your story (in Hidden Figures’ case, just adequately) than it is who you tell it with.

In terms of such content, your mileage may depend on how much you feel like you’re being led by the nose, but I rarely had that response in this case. Much of the time, I was too busy laughing to feel I was being spoon-fed a past-its-sell-by-date agenda. Farrelly is, after all, a comedy director, often proudly of the lowest order, so he knows his way around the energy of a scene (despite its length, the picture is admirably well-paced). As with most comedies too, his main characters are quite broad in profile – it’s through the nuances of their growing friendship that Mortensen and Ali are able to maintain a balance of being both larger than life and affectingly “real”.

Mortenson, who received flak early in the season for failing to choose his language very carefully, has been magnanimous about the criticisms of the picture (“hopefully, people will judge everybody’s work on its merits. You can’t please everybody, and you can’t have everything”) Certainly, one can criticise the film for prizing Tony’s point of view over Shirley’s – it’s an entirely reasonable discussion point – but ultimately it comes down to what’s best for this particular story, and whether it actually does Shirley a disservice to tell it that way (Carole Shirley Kimble thought so, calling ita depiction of a white man’s version of a black man’s life”).

Given this subject matter, many filmmakers’ instincts would have been easy to make the whole endeavour wearisomely cute and insufferably pat; the final scene, with Don showing up for at Tony’s for Christmas dinner and being greeted by his impossibly inclusive wife (the wonderful Linda Cardellini), seems manufactured for exactly that kind of schmaltz, yet it plays with moderation and understatement, avoiding overdoing the sentiment. The only time I really felt the picture giving in to the impulse to milk it was Don’s rain-soaked “if I’m not black enough and if I’m not white enough, then tell me Tony, what am I?”, whereby Farrelly even invokes the elements to deliver Don’s distress in as ripe a fashion as possible. Mostly, though, I had the impression Farrelly was aware of the pitfalls of telling the story the way he told it, but he found it irresistible to tell it that way anyway. 

The chemistry between Mortenson (a De Niro-esque transformation, back when that meant something; you’re never preoccupied with this being the guy who once played Aragorn) and Ali (on a roll with this and True Detective Season Three) is palpable; beyond race, this is a comedy of manners, and the pair have a fantastic rapport. Indeed, Ali is the Steve Martin to Mortenson’s John Candy (come to think of it, the trip to the Deep South aside, Green Book is very similar to Planes, Trains and Automobiles). So much of what’s here is just very, very funny – Tony’s suggestion that squirrels will eat his discarded drink container, Don’s description of Tony’s letter to his wife as “more like a piecemeal ransom note”, the conversation about Don’s Orpheus in the Underworld recording, to name just three – that to talk onlyabout the implications of Green Book failing to live up to current expectations for such storytelling is to ignore how well-observed the piece is.

On the other hand, you can find a cogent argument for Green Book’s failings in telling this story this way now here, and why it should have been a movie about Don Shirley. I suspect, somehow, it wouldn’t have turned out as a feel-good dramedy if it had been. Indeed, for the most part, Green Book scrupulously avoids getting bogged down in notions of worthiness and self-importance; it might be better to see it simply as the latest highly enjoyable entry in the (very variable) road trip sub-genre, rather than a picture keyed to elicit the endorsement of unknowing reactionaries.

As for the Best Picture Oscar, who knows? There are downsides to Roma winning (it’s a vote by the Academy for Netflix), Bohemian Rhapsody (even if he doesn’t get mentioned, Bryan Singer is the credited director) and this (it’ll be seen as another “enlightened Hollywood showing how unenlightened it is”, à la Crash). Still, it might better to give it to something that creates a conversation, rather than a movie destined to be forgotten the day after. After all, ratings aren’t what they were.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty (1999)
(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its p…

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider (1999)
(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.