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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There