Skip to main content

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 sacrificial plot function – and it does, but it isn’t for nothing that The Green Mile has been singled out for parading the device in its most unreconstituted form.

Although he namechecked Duncan’s character, Spike Lee focussed on The Legend of Bagger Vance in his lecture regarding Hollywood’s ongoing fascination with the “super-duper Magical Negro”; Coffey is nevertheless practically the dubious trope’s poster boy (“So enlightened and selfless is he that he has no desire to gain glory for himself; he only wants to help those who need guidance…which just happens to mean those who are traditionally viewed by Hollywood as better suited for protagonist roles, not, say, his own oppressed people” as TV Tropes defines it).

King’s writing has been identified as displaying an ongoing fascination with the device (“there is a 99% chance that whatever black character appears, be they magical or not, their presence will serve only to enhance, advance, save or develop white characters”), and it’s notable that King himself cited The Green Mile as probably the most faithful adaptation of his work (at that point, anyway). He has defended his choice by stating that he only made the Coffey black because it would leave no doubt that he would have been sentenced to death, given the time place and setting. But it does rather raise the question of whether Darabont was given pause over navigating such potentially treacherous waters without amendment.

To which, I’m doubtful you could address the concerns over Coffey’s character without fundamentally changing the narrative. You could feasibly make him the protagonist, but the whole point of the Christ analogy is to raise him up, to make him untouchable and unknowable, holy and beyond mere human pettiness (so observed through the eyes of less worthy others). And you might make him white, but then you’d remove the reason he’s treated the way he is in the first place. Even if you tried to make this an Of Mice and Men type piece, you’d be stuck with having to reflect him off another protagonist, due to his “simple angel” qualities. What you’d end up coming back to is that, tactfully, you’d probably be best off steering clear of making The Green Mile altogether.

A recent revisit by Joblo levels the charge that the picture is racist through and through, while suggesting that every character outside of Tom Hanks’ Paul Edgecomb and Coffey is “infinitely more interesting than our leads”. I’m not sure that’s the case (certainly to the second part). Everycharacter here, barring Paul Edgecomb (Hanks) as narrator and main protagonist,is essentially as unfiltered as Coffey himself. Thus, the best you could say is that, while he is defined by the rule that "you never get to know those characters and their interior lives or anything like that. They're there to serve a purpose", he’s not alone there. The prison guards are all caring saints, except for the ones – the one, Doug Hutchison – who aren’t. Who are utterly evil. The death row prisoners are all “characters”, likeable in their own ways, except for the ones – the one, Sam Rockwell, playing a blinder – who aren’t. Even the mouse is a miracle of lovely mousiness. This isn’ta subtle film, but it isn’t designed to be, and comparing it to The Shawshank Redemption for lacking realism, besides being absurd, as Darabont’s first film is hardly a bastion of that, is rather missing the point.

One review suggested Hanks’s character has a crisis of conscience, confiding in his wife that he is afraid of Hell, but only lets Coffey persuade him that he is tired, finds the world a painful place and wants to die. And that’s it. He’s off the hook; no great moral stand required”. Which is a valid point; in the framing section, Edgecomb suggests his punishment is to live a (potentially very) long time, but that section never feels entirely earned and smacks of Spielbergian self-importance (Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan) rather than being essential (Darabont even goes as far as providing utterly extraneous exposition telling us all just how the magic here works).

A few have defended the picture’s choices (“Many people might call The Green Mile a racist stereotype, but if you put the pieces together i.e. the time, and place of the movie and put a Black giant with some type of developmental disability you’ll see that you're not far off from the life of Black developmental disabled in the south back then”), but there remains the problem of how the picture is positioned, rather overpowering those factors that might be argued to ameliorate it (the Christ parable, the presentation of the picture’s singular black character).

I’d rather recognise its thorny elements – ones I know I didn’t, like many, consciously process on first viewing – while averring that I nevertheless find the picture dramatically compelling and emotionally persuasive even then. The Green Mile is a problematic picture, but it’s no less a well told picture for its dubious tropes and intentionally overplayed and crude elements (capital punishment is BAD via a beyond grisly horror movie execution). Thomas Newman’s score also reflects the lack of nuance, very much a copy-and-paste of his work on Shawshank, right down to the rapidly annoying, self-conscious quirkiness of the more light-hearted scenes. But while I can lay point the finger at various elements (the convenience of the actual murderer being a fellow death row inmate, as Time Out’s Derek Adams pointed out is “disappointingly tidy and trite” – the twist element I cited in the opening paragraph), I dofind satisfying the rather functional manner in which Coffey arranges the guilty party’s punishment while rendering Percy incapacitated (possibly neither of which are very Christ-like; Percy in particular being asylum bound seems something out of a Tim Burton Batman plot).

So is The Green Mile guilty as charged? I may not be the person to judge, but I’d tend to the view that, if anything, it manages to miss the wood for the trees, Darabont having the best of intentions but failing to think things through in the name of eliciting a viewer response; The Guardian suggested “for all its cunning confounding of expectations and provoking of emotions, it's not at all clear what, if anything, the film is saying”. Darabont fessed up to knowing what he was doing dramatically, but whether that means he understood the implications of the underlying messages he was sending out is debatable: "Every frame of every movie is an attempt by the artist to manipulate the perceptions or emotions of the viewer. The point is, do you appreciate the manipulation or resent it? Do you notice it, or do you completely, blindly give yourself over to it?"

The Guardian again: “The Green Mile inhabits a soothing dream world in which audiences can experience strong yet vague feelings and leave the cinema thinking life is beautiful”. And that’s absolutely the case, and if you like, a testament to Darabont’s skills as a filmmaker. Or a condemnation thereof. It’s operating in the same territory as Shawshank in that regard (while not being nearly as accomplished overall). The film drew me in on this visit in exactly the same way it did whenever I saw it last, despite misgivings over some of its choices (and yes, I could have lost the framing device, and it could have probably have happily forfeited several subplots, but it’s this quality, of immersing you in a world at a stately pace, that is key to its effectiveness).

The Green Mile was nominated for four Oscars, including Best Picture, in a year proclaimed by many as the best for movies ever. I doubt I’d agree with that assessment (1998, for one, is far superior), but it’s certainly the case that “the cream of the crop” (as designated by critics) weren’t wholly reflected in the Oscar nominees. The Cider House Rules was generally regarded as a filler vote, The Sixth Sense the populist one, and The Insider and American Beauty (at the time) the bona fide quality choices. Michael Clarke Duncan was eclipsed by another Michael in one of his least interesting performances; whatever one’s view of the stereotypes Coffey may be servicing, Duncan’s is an undeniably powerful performance. Most reverential Screenplay adaption got a nod too, as did Sound; I’d argue Darabont should have received a nomination for his direction rather than screenplay, though, as it’s that sureness that remains most impressive.

The Green Mile’s awards recognition, I think, reflected the rising stock of The Shawshank Redemption in the interim (also nominated but going home empty-handed), and that this was a good, solid meat-and-potatoes (supernatural) drama, if far from the kind that truly merited such honours (of course, it wasn’t far off being as beloved as Shawshank by the public; it’s at 29 on IMDB); it’s very quality of suggesting films of yesteryear earned it the respect of the Academy. One might argue such a thing would not happen now, as its less politically and racially sensitive elements would see it dismissed before the nomination stage. But then, one might also argue that’s precisely what happened this year with Green Book (I’d disagree that they’re the same thing, even if they’re both green). It’s ironic that, given the less esteemed stock in which The Green Mile is now held – by critics and by extension, probably by film buffs, rather than the general public – that this was the period not only of peak Darabont – The Majestic was around the corner, his undiluted Capra fixation proving his undoing – but also probably peak King, a path that, despite the frequent misfires, had been weaved through Stand by Me, Misery and The Shawshank Redemption.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.