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

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…

Life is like a box of timelines. You feel me?

Russian Doll Season One
(SPOILERS) It feels like loading the dice to proclaim something necessarily better because it’s female-driven, but that’s the tack The Hollywood Reporter took with its effusive review of Russian Doll, suggesting “although Nadia goes on a similar journey of self-discovery to Bill Murray’s hackneyed reporter in Groundhog Day, the fact that the show was created, written by and stars women means that it offers up a different, less exploitative and far more thoughtful angle” (than the predominately male-centric entries in the sub-genre). Which rather sounds like Rosie Knight changing the facts to fit her argument. And ironic, given star Natasha Lyonne has gone out of her way to stress the show’s inclusive message. Russian Dollis good, but the suggestion that “unlike its predecessors (it) provides a thoughtfulness, authenticity and honesty which makes it inevitable end (sic) all the more powerful” is cobblers.

We’re not owners here, Karen. We’re just passing through.

Out of Africa (1985)
I did not warm to Out of Africa on my initial viewing, which would probably have been a few years after its theatrical release. It was exactly as the publicity warned, said my cynical side; a shallow-yet-bloated, awards-baiting epic romance. This was little more than a well-dressed period chick flick, the allure of which was easily explained by its lovingly photographed exotic vistas and Robert Redford rehearsing a soothing Timotei advert on Meryl Streep’s distressed locks. That it took Best Picture only seemed like confirmation of it as all-surface and no substance. So, on revisiting the film, I was curious to see if my tastes had “matured” or if it deserved that dismissal. 

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

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…

We’re looking for a bug no one’s seen before. Some kind of smart bug.

Starship Troopers (1997)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi trio of Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers are frequently claimed to be unrivalled in their genre, but it’s really only the first of them that entirely attains that rarefied level. Discussion and praise of Starship Troopers is generally prefaced by noting that great swathes of people – including critics and cast members – were too stupid to realise it was a satire. This is a bit of a Fight Club one, certainly for anyone from the UK (Verhoeven commented “The English got it though. I remember coming out of Heathrow and seeing the posters, which were great. They were just stupid lines about war from the movie. I thought, ‘Finally someone knows how to promote this.’”) who needed no kind of steer to recognise what the director was doing. And what he does, he does splendidly, even if, at times, I’m not sure he entirely sustains a 129-minute movie, since, while both camp and OTT, Starship Troopers is simultaneously required t…

Even after a stake was driven through its heart, there’s still interest.

Prediction 2019 Oscars
Shockingly, as in I’m usually much further behind, I’ve missed out on only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees– Vice isn’t yet my vice, it seems – in what is being suggested, with some justification, as a difficult year to call. That might make for must-see appeal, if anyone actually cared about the movies jostling for pole position. If it were between Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody (if they were even sufficiently up to snuff to deserve a nod in the first place), there might be a strange fascination, but Joe Public don’t care about Roma, underlined by it being on Netflix and stillconspicuously avoided by subscribers (if it were otherwise, they’d be crowing about viewing figures; it’s no Bird Box, that’s for sure).

Now we're all wanted by the CIA. Awesome.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (2015)
(SPOILERS) There’s a groundswell of opinion that Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is the best in near 20-year movie franchise. I’m not sure I’d go quite that far, but only because this latest instalment and its two predecessors have maintained such a consistently high standard it’s difficult to pick between them. III featured a superior villain and an emotional through line with real stakes. Ghost Protocol dazzled with its giddily constructed set pieces and pacing. Christopher McQuarrie’s fifth entry has the virtue of a very solid script, one that expertly navigates the kind of twists and intrigue one expects from a spy franchise. It also shows off his talent as a director; McQuarrie’s not one for stylistic flourish, but he makes up for this with diligence and precision. Best of all, he may have delivered the series’ best character in Rebecca Ferguson’s Ilsa Faust (admittedly, in a quintet that makes a virtue of pared down motivation and absen…

Yeah, she loused up one of the five best days of your life.

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
(SPOILERS) The zeitgeist Best Picture Oscar winner is prone to falling from grace like no other. Often, they’re films with notable acting performances but themes that tend to appear antiquated or even slightly offensive in hindsight. Few extol the virtues of American Beauty the way they did twenty years ago, and Kramer vs. Kramer isn’t quite seen as exemplifying a sensitive and balanced examination of the fallout of divorce on children and their parents the way it was forty years previously. It remains a compelling film for the performances, but it’s difficult not to view it, despite the ameliorating effect of Meryl Streep (an effect she had to struggle to exert), as a vanity project of its star, and one that doesn’t do him any favours with hindsight and behind-the-scenes knowledge.