Be it controversial or not there is no denying the power of The Help so much so that it is lighting up the box office through word of mouth. The publicity has been off the hook as well, perhaps not playing to the blogerati but hitting right at the heart of white audiences, right smack dab in the middle of Blind Side territory.
I was sitting at a dinner with about six women (white, upper middle class) and the first thing that was brought up was “have you seen The Help? Wasn’t that so good?” The conversation then checked in with who hadn’t yet seen it. After it died down I brought up the subject of race. Needless to say it didn’t go over well. What did come out of the conversation was how timely the film was in terms of Hispanic nannies (do we say Hispanic or Latina?) and how there should be some rumination on this idea of what determines family and what doesn’t.
You can’t tell people who responded emotionally to a film like this that they shouldn’t like it because it isn’t politically correct, or that it’s offensive to African Americans and that any response to that is an endorsement of said repression and the perpetuating of the Jim Crow racism that has and continues to oppress multitudes. I’m not even saying I disagree. But I am acknowledging the emotional power of the film, just as I’m now acknowledging that a movie that does this well at the box office, has this kind of emotional heat, plays to women the way it does, has a very very good chance at winding up in the number 1 spot on AMPAS ballots. Like last year’s winner proved, the heart wants what it wants. No matter if it was a stuttering King or not – the emotional response is real.
What makes an accidental Best Picture nominee today? It’s usually a movie that somehow slips under or over the blogerati, and/or critics (mind you, The Help received many good reviews, most notably from Entertainment Weekly’s Owen Gleibermann) to become a hit and a strong awards contender DESPITE the shunning by the elite (this theory was offered up on our podcast recording this morning by Jeff Wells). In other words, a good movie is a good movie is a good movie.
When you have a screening at the White House by Michelle Obama and a very public endorsement by Ms. Oprah Winfrey herself, you can pretty much forget any sort of pubic shaming of the film; it has now been deemed perfect acceptable by two of the country’s strongest and most powerful black women.
It is also important to remember that voting is done privately and anonymously. That keeps it fairly honest so that no one is necessarily going to vote for what they SHOULD vote for – not for the best film, but the film they liked the most, starring characters they cared about the most. When it gets right down to it, the heart is the most influential organ when it comes to Oscar voting.
Therefore, I see The Help clocking in as 2011’s second truly strong and formidable Oscar contender (plus, when you get a load of the publicity team behind it you will see it can’t be beat). I count the first as Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris, another film that is receiving strong word of mouth, is Woody Allen’s biggest money maker to date and feels more timely than ever, as its message is about looking to the future and not trying to live in the past.
@T:
“To add insult to injury, the lawsuit filed by the real life Abilene against the author of “The Help” for the use of her likeness in the movie has been thrown out. She was only asking for $75,000. Any writer with a hint of sense knows that you always change names.”
” Conjecture: Obviously you know nothing about the law. but we won’t go into that. let’s start w/ the “obvious.” If the author had truly written about this woman, she would’ve changed the name.
“Abilene is a rare and unique name, and she was the housekeeper for the filmmaker’s family,” WRONG, it was stated that she worked for the author’s brother, whom the author admitted to meeting on two occasions,
and the who was a childhood friend of the author- who admits to meeting the real life Abilene once or twice during childhood. WRONG: this woman worked for the author’s brother’s family after the author who was an adult moved away.
“The author will make millions from both the film and the book” TRUE as she should. she wrote the book, created the story that was not based on this woman.
“, yet she can’t fathom paying $75,000 for the unlawful use of someone’s image.” no one should be forced to pay for something when it is clear they are not libel.
FACT: the case was thrown out b/c the author gave a copy of the book to Cooper along with a note saying i know the names are similar but this character is not based on you… (BEFORE THE BOOK WAS PUBLISHED IN 09.
Fact: cooper didn’t read the book until 2010 and then filed a lawsuit in 2011. now any smart person can see that this woman was looking for a pay day. why did it take her so long to read the book. perhaps it didn’t occur to her that this character was “based on her” until the book became a best seller. if the author had agregiously damaged this woman, why did it take so long for her to even familiarize herself with the material and move forward promptly?
and please don’t go spouting tripe as if it were true. you’d have grounds for a better argument if we couldn’t easily research every false point you made and show it to be thus, FALSE!
@T:
“To add insult to injury, the lawsuit filed by the real life Abilene against the author of “The Help” for the use of her likeness in the movie has been thrown out. She was only asking for $75,000. Any writer with a hint of sense knows that you always change names.”
” Conjecture: Obviously you know nothing about the law. but we won’t go into that. let’s start w/ the “obvious.” If the author had truly written about this woman, she would’ve changed the name.
“Abilene is a rare and unique name, and she was the housekeeper for the filmmaker’s family,” WRONG, it was stated that she worked for the author’s brother, whom the author admitted to meeting on two occasions,
and the who was a childhood friend of the author- who admits to meeting the real life Abilene once or twice during childhood. WRONG: this woman worked for the author’s brother’s family after the author who was an adult moved away.
“The author will make millions from both the film and the book” TRUE as she should. she wrote the book, created the story that was not based on this woman.
“, yet she can’t fathom paying $75,000 for the unlawful use of someone’s image.” no one should be forced to pay for something when it is clear they are not libel.
FACT: the case was thrown out b/c the author gave a copy of the book to Cooper along with a note saying i know the names are similar but this character is not based on you… (BEFORE THE BOOK WAS PUBLISHED IN 09.
Fact: cooper didn’t read the book until 2010 and then filed a lawsuit in 2011. now any smart person can see that this woman was looking for a pay day. why did it take her so long to read the book. perhaps it didn’t occur to her that this character was “based on her” until the book became a best seller. if the author had agregiously damaged this woman, why did it take so long for her to even familiarize herself with the material and move forward promptly?
and please don’t go spouting tripe as if it were true. you’d have grounds for a better argument if we couldn’t easily research every false point you made and show it to be thus, FALSE!
Clayton Perry
August 11, 2011 at 5:07 pm
The ABWH notes that “[up to 90 per cent of working black women in the South labored as domestic servants in white homes.” If this is the case, then why not condemn the fact that it has taken decades to get a depiction of the black, Southern, female experience on-screen? I’m just at a loss of words. The attack seems to target the wrong people: Kathryn Stockett, Tate Taylor and the cast of “The Help.”
Also, why is the film being labeled a “feel-good” story? Even though Aibileen, Minny and Skeeter are friends, they know the present world will not accept their friendship. (This is why Aibileen and Minny tell Skeeter to leave Jackson, since she has no future in Jackson due to her book’s publication.) During the end credits, Aibileen walks off into the sunset – after being fired from her first job, an emotional departure from her “baby” Mae, a threat of being reported to the police, no sure plans for the future and an empty home to lay her head.
As far as the concerns cited:
“…silent on the rich and vibrant history of black Civil Rights activists in Mississippi?” (I can’t remember the last time Hollywood even made mention of Medgar Evers, let alone the White Citizens Council.)
“…most of the black ma…le characters are depicted as drunkards, abusive, or absent?” (The men depicted on-screen were far from sloths! Aibileen’s son was hard-working, yet killed at work. And finances willing, Yule Mae’s two sons are college-bound.)
“…[no] depictions of sexual harassment? “(Hilly started the Home Help Sanitation Initiative, because she believe diseased would be spread BY the help INTO the household.)
“…a contemporary nostalgia for the days when a black woman could only hope to clean the White House rather than reside in it?” (Did we read the same book, or watch the same film? The maids hoped for better, their situation dictated otherwise. Yule Mae was CRUSHED when Hilly did not grant her “loan” request, which ultimately led to her arrest. Minny constantly gave her employers have a piece of her mind. Why else would she have had 19 jobs – and such difficulty keeping work?)
Tory, are you on Twitter?
Clayton Perry
August 11, 2011 at 5:07 pm
The ABWH notes that “[up to 90 per cent of working black women in the South labored as domestic servants in white homes.” If this is the case, then why not condemn the fact that it has taken decades to get a depiction of the black, Southern, female experience on-screen? I’m just at a loss of words. The attack seems to target the wrong people: Kathryn Stockett, Tate Taylor and the cast of “The Help.”
Also, why is the film being labeled a “feel-good” story? Even though Aibileen, Minny and Skeeter are friends, they know the present world will not accept their friendship. (This is why Aibileen and Minny tell Skeeter to leave Jackson, since she has no future in Jackson due to her book’s publication.) During the end credits, Aibileen walks off into the sunset – after being fired from her first job, an emotional departure from her “baby” Mae, a threat of being reported to the police, no sure plans for the future and an empty home to lay her head.
As far as the concerns cited:
“…silent on the rich and vibrant history of black Civil Rights activists in Mississippi?” (I can’t remember the last time Hollywood even made mention of Medgar Evers, let alone the White Citizens Council.)
“…most of the black ma…le characters are depicted as drunkards, abusive, or absent?” (The men depicted on-screen were far from sloths! Aibileen’s son was hard-working, yet killed at work. And finances willing, Yule Mae’s two sons are college-bound.)
“…[no] depictions of sexual harassment? “(Hilly started the Home Help Sanitation Initiative, because she believe diseased would be spread BY the help INTO the household.)
“…a contemporary nostalgia for the days when a black woman could only hope to clean the White House rather than reside in it?” (Did we read the same book, or watch the same film? The maids hoped for better, their situation dictated otherwise. Yule Mae was CRUSHED when Hilly did not grant her “loan” request, which ultimately led to her arrest. Minny constantly gave her employers have a piece of her mind. Why else would she have had 19 jobs – and such difficulty keeping work?)
Tory, are you on Twitter?
Sunshine
August 13, 2011 at 4:47 pm
“AND she gives the black female characters some dignity? WOW. We are the women of the night, we must be special”
Actually, she doesn’t give them any dignity at all. The author is audacious enough to have a black character compare her skin color to a cockroach. Funny, when I read all the supportive comments from the book and movie’s many fans they ALWAYS neglect to mention that scene. I’m sure it’s not in the movie, though. That would’ve unveiled Ms. Stockett’s true agenda to subjugate black women and portray us as Mammies that are “asexual, loyal, and contented caretakers of whites”. Sure it’s her perspective, no argument there. My question is why would ANY black woman in her right mind support that perspective? SMDH at all the ignorance I’ve read in this comment section. We have definitely failed our youth in passing down our black history and experiences. If you want to educate yourself on the book’s message, take the time to visit this website-
http://acriticalreviewofthehelp.wordpress.com/
Sunshine
August 13, 2011 at 4:47 pm
“AND she gives the black female characters some dignity? WOW. We are the women of the night, we must be special”
Actually, she doesn’t give them any dignity at all. The author is audacious enough to have a black character compare her skin color to a cockroach. Funny, when I read all the supportive comments from the book and movie’s many fans they ALWAYS neglect to mention that scene. I’m sure it’s not in the movie, though. That would’ve unveiled Ms. Stockett’s true agenda to subjugate black women and portray us as Mammies that are “asexual, loyal, and contented caretakers of whites”. Sure it’s her perspective, no argument there. My question is why would ANY black woman in her right mind support that perspective? SMDH at all the ignorance I’ve read in this comment section. We have definitely failed our youth in passing down our black history and experiences. If you want to educate yourself on the book’s message, take the time to visit this website-
http://acriticalreviewofthehelp.wordpress.com/
DH
August 17, 2011 at 11:06 pm
To add insult to injury, the lawsuit filed by the real life Abilene against the author of “The Help” for the use of her likeness in the movie has been thrown out. She was only asking for $75,000. Any writer with a hint of sense knows that you always change names.
Abilene is a rare and unique name, and she was the housekeeper for the filmmaker’s family, who was a childhood friend of the author- who admits to meeting the real life Abilene once or twice during childhood. The author will make millions from both the film and the book, yet she can’t fathom paying $75,000 for the unlawful use of someone’s image.
DH
August 17, 2011 at 11:06 pm
To add insult to injury, the lawsuit filed by the real life Abilene against the author of “The Help” for the use of her likeness in the movie has been thrown out. She was only asking for $75,000. Any writer with a hint of sense knows that you always change names.
Abilene is a rare and unique name, and she was the housekeeper for the filmmaker’s family, who was a childhood friend of the author- who admits to meeting the real life Abilene once or twice during childhood. The author will make millions from both the film and the book, yet she can’t fathom paying $75,000 for the unlawful use of someone’s image.
Recently, Ida E. Jones, the National Director of the Association of Black Women Historians penned an open letter hoping to add a bit of historical context to The Help. Her letter is not only eye-opening, but adds even more depth to the issues tackled in the film.
Read Ida E. Jones’ open letter about The Help.
An Open Statement to the Fans of The Help:
On behalf of the Association of Black Women Historians (ABWH), this statement provides historical context to address widespread stereotyping presented in both the film and novel version of The Help. The book has sold over three million copies, and heavy promotion of the movie will ensure its success at the box office. Despite efforts to market the book and the film as a progressive story of triumph over racial injustice, The Help distorts, ignores, and trivializes the experiences of black domestic workers. We are specifically concerned about the representations of black life and the lack of attention given to sexual harassment and civil rights activism.
During the 1960s, the era covered in The Help, legal segregation and economic inequalities limited black women’s employment opportunities. Up to 90 per cent of working black women in the South labored as domestic servants in white homes. The Help’s representation of these women is a disappointing resurrection of Mammy—a mythical stereotype of black women who were compelled, either by slavery or segregation, to serve white families. Portrayed as asexual, loyal, and contented caretakers of whites, the caricature of Mammy allowed mainstream America to ignore the systemic racism that bound black women to back-breaking, low paying jobs where employers routinely exploited them. The popularity of this most recent iteration is troubling because it reveals a contemporary nostalgia for the days when a black woman could only hope to clean the White House rather than reside in it.
Both versions of The Help also misrepresent African American speech and culture. Set in the South, the appropriate regional accent gives way to a child-like, over-exaggerated “black” dialect. In the film, for example, the primary character, Aibileen, reassures a young white child that, “You is smat, you is kind, you is important.” In the book, black women refer to the Lord as the “Law,” an irreverent depiction of black vernacular. For centuries, black women and men have drawn strength from their community institutions. The black family, in particular provided support and the validation of personhood necessary to stand against adversity. We do not recognize the black community described in The Help where most of the black male characters are depicted as drunkards, abusive, or absent. Such distorted images are misleading and do not represent the historical realities of black masculinity and manhood.
Furthermore, African American domestic workers often suffered sexual harassment as well as physical and verbal abuse in the homes of white employers. For example, a recently discovered letter written by Civil Rights activist Rosa Parks indicates that she, like many black domestic workers, lived under the threat and sometimes reality of sexual assault. The film, on the other hand, makes light of black women’s fears and vulnerabilities turning them into moments of comic relief.
Similarly, the film is woefully silent on the rich and vibrant history of black Civil Rights activists in Mississippi. Granted, the assassination of Medgar Evers, the first Mississippi based field secretary of the NAACP, gets some attention. However, Evers’ assassination sends Jackson’s black community frantically scurrying into the streets in utter chaos and disorganized confusion—a far cry from the courage demonstrated by the black men and women who continued his fight. Portraying the most dangerous racists in 1960s Mississippi as a group of attractive, well dressed, society women, while ignoring the reign of terror perpetuated by the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens Council, limits racial injustice to individual acts of meanness.
We respect the stellar performances of the African American actresses in this film. Indeed, this statement is in no way a criticism of their talent. It is, however, an attempt to provide context for this popular rendition of black life in the Jim Crow South. In the end, The Help is not a story about the millions of hardworking and dignified black women who labored in white homes to support their families and communities. Rather, it is the coming-of-age story of a white protagonist, who uses myths about the lives of black women to make sense of her own. The Association of Black Women Historians finds it unacceptable for either this book or this film to strip black women’s lives of historical accuracy for the sake of entertainment.
Recently, Ida E. Jones, the National Director of the Association of Black Women Historians penned an open letter hoping to add a bit of historical context to The Help. Her letter is not only eye-opening, but adds even more depth to the issues tackled in the film.
Read Ida E. Jones’ open letter about The Help.
An Open Statement to the Fans of The Help:
On behalf of the Association of Black Women Historians (ABWH), this statement provides historical context to address widespread stereotyping presented in both the film and novel version of The Help. The book has sold over three million copies, and heavy promotion of the movie will ensure its success at the box office. Despite efforts to market the book and the film as a progressive story of triumph over racial injustice, The Help distorts, ignores, and trivializes the experiences of black domestic workers. We are specifically concerned about the representations of black life and the lack of attention given to sexual harassment and civil rights activism.
During the 1960s, the era covered in The Help, legal segregation and economic inequalities limited black women’s employment opportunities. Up to 90 per cent of working black women in the South labored as domestic servants in white homes. The Help’s representation of these women is a disappointing resurrection of Mammy—a mythical stereotype of black women who were compelled, either by slavery or segregation, to serve white families. Portrayed as asexual, loyal, and contented caretakers of whites, the caricature of Mammy allowed mainstream America to ignore the systemic racism that bound black women to back-breaking, low paying jobs where employers routinely exploited them. The popularity of this most recent iteration is troubling because it reveals a contemporary nostalgia for the days when a black woman could only hope to clean the White House rather than reside in it.
Both versions of The Help also misrepresent African American speech and culture. Set in the South, the appropriate regional accent gives way to a child-like, over-exaggerated “black” dialect. In the film, for example, the primary character, Aibileen, reassures a young white child that, “You is smat, you is kind, you is important.” In the book, black women refer to the Lord as the “Law,” an irreverent depiction of black vernacular. For centuries, black women and men have drawn strength from their community institutions. The black family, in particular provided support and the validation of personhood necessary to stand against adversity. We do not recognize the black community described in The Help where most of the black male characters are depicted as drunkards, abusive, or absent. Such distorted images are misleading and do not represent the historical realities of black masculinity and manhood.
Furthermore, African American domestic workers often suffered sexual harassment as well as physical and verbal abuse in the homes of white employers. For example, a recently discovered letter written by Civil Rights activist Rosa Parks indicates that she, like many black domestic workers, lived under the threat and sometimes reality of sexual assault. The film, on the other hand, makes light of black women’s fears and vulnerabilities turning them into moments of comic relief.
Similarly, the film is woefully silent on the rich and vibrant history of black Civil Rights activists in Mississippi. Granted, the assassination of Medgar Evers, the first Mississippi based field secretary of the NAACP, gets some attention. However, Evers’ assassination sends Jackson’s black community frantically scurrying into the streets in utter chaos and disorganized confusion—a far cry from the courage demonstrated by the black men and women who continued his fight. Portraying the most dangerous racists in 1960s Mississippi as a group of attractive, well dressed, society women, while ignoring the reign of terror perpetuated by the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens Council, limits racial injustice to individual acts of meanness.
We respect the stellar performances of the African American actresses in this film. Indeed, this statement is in no way a criticism of their talent. It is, however, an attempt to provide context for this popular rendition of black life in the Jim Crow South. In the end, The Help is not a story about the millions of hardworking and dignified black women who labored in white homes to support their families and communities. Rather, it is the coming-of-age story of a white protagonist, who uses myths about the lives of black women to make sense of her own. The Association of Black Women Historians finds it unacceptable for either this book or this film to strip black women’s lives of historical accuracy for the sake of entertainment.
Janson J. on 08-22-2011 06:32 PM
Have mercy! Driving Miss Skeeter over here. I’m not hating on the African American essence of these movies, only the movies that treat African Americans like pets, then act like the master “learning” the value of humanity is equal to the courage of the “help” in asserting their dignity. Feel Good Samaritan BS. Anyone doing a Fannie Lou Hamer movie? (Who? Exactly my point….)
3 Replies |Reply
King David on 08-22-2011 06:57 PM
I agree with most of what you have laid out but this is a tough topic. I supported it because of the lesser known actresses in it who I believe are deserving of the attention in a surprise hit. The movie content was some what taboo but it’s either this or the other taboo.
Janson J. on 08-22-2011 07:34 PM
Ha. “Somewhat taboo”. Right. Because my problem with the film was it was TOO radical? It wasn’t taboo enough. It didn’t deal with the white groups who followed harassed and killed those who tried to do what Skeeter pulled off. It doesn’t deal with the assumption that somebody else’s mother should raise your own kids (while they have their own kids to raise). It doesn’t deal with who was responsible for the ingrained, systemic segregation, why it was implemented, why it was taken for granted. In short, it says very little about why civil rights were necessary. It does pretend that with a time machine, some liberal ladies today could go back and do some good. The film’s “supporters” (rather than “fans”, which tells you something) claim it opens up a new avenue for the race-relations conversation in America, and then duly shut it down when they don’t like what they hear. “I’m tired of talking about it”, which is your right, but doesn’t make you right. I’ve seen similar comments from the film’s supporters, more concerned with disarming dissent than in defending the film. It deals with important issues of race in America, but point out the historical flaws and they say, hey, it’s just fictional entertainment. Can’t have it both ways. As entertainment, I hope Viola Davies gets that gold. I hope Octavia Spencer gets nominated. But Best Picture? The probability of this is scary enough, but it certainly won’t deserve it.
King David on 08-23-2011 01:07 AM
Movies that move to deeply in America’s true DARK past just do not do good during Oscar season. The movie did not touch on any of the true struggles these women endured during that time which to me is not really acceptable, but I can see why they stayed away from the real problems of that decade ( which have been slightly touched on in other movies). I’m by no means saying that is acceptable, it was a cop out but it would not have been marketed to a wide audience if it had been that real. I’m just glad the movie is doing good even though it only brushed the surface, an although very little discussion can occur because of this movie maybe it can open the door for other movies with a deeper analysis of this subject matter to touch a broader audience with a good Box office draw. If people are truly ready to talk about these topics.
Reply
Gordon Franklin Terry Sr on 08-23-2011 10:50 AM
I KNOW . . . overly-sentimental and apologist; however “teary-eyed” boo-hoo-hooooooo movies that say “I’m sorry for the past, foregive me,” win awards . . . because . . . they PLAY OUR emotions like piano keys. or “push our buttons” like Hammond Organs.
Janson J. on 08-22-2011 06:32 PM
Have mercy! Driving Miss Skeeter over here. I’m not hating on the African American essence of these movies, only the movies that treat African Americans like pets, then act like the master “learning” the value of humanity is equal to the courage of the “help” in asserting their dignity. Feel Good Samaritan BS. Anyone doing a Fannie Lou Hamer movie? (Who? Exactly my point….)
3 Replies |Reply
King David on 08-22-2011 06:57 PM
I agree with most of what you have laid out but this is a tough topic. I supported it because of the lesser known actresses in it who I believe are deserving of the attention in a surprise hit. The movie content was some what taboo but it’s either this or the other taboo.
Janson J. on 08-22-2011 07:34 PM
Ha. “Somewhat taboo”. Right. Because my problem with the film was it was TOO radical? It wasn’t taboo enough. It didn’t deal with the white groups who followed harassed and killed those who tried to do what Skeeter pulled off. It doesn’t deal with the assumption that somebody else’s mother should raise your own kids (while they have their own kids to raise). It doesn’t deal with who was responsible for the ingrained, systemic segregation, why it was implemented, why it was taken for granted. In short, it says very little about why civil rights were necessary. It does pretend that with a time machine, some liberal ladies today could go back and do some good. The film’s “supporters” (rather than “fans”, which tells you something) claim it opens up a new avenue for the race-relations conversation in America, and then duly shut it down when they don’t like what they hear. “I’m tired of talking about it”, which is your right, but doesn’t make you right. I’ve seen similar comments from the film’s supporters, more concerned with disarming dissent than in defending the film. It deals with important issues of race in America, but point out the historical flaws and they say, hey, it’s just fictional entertainment. Can’t have it both ways. As entertainment, I hope Viola Davies gets that gold. I hope Octavia Spencer gets nominated. But Best Picture? The probability of this is scary enough, but it certainly won’t deserve it.
King David on 08-23-2011 01:07 AM
Movies that move to deeply in America’s true DARK past just do not do good during Oscar season. The movie did not touch on any of the true struggles these women endured during that time which to me is not really acceptable, but I can see why they stayed away from the real problems of that decade ( which have been slightly touched on in other movies). I’m by no means saying that is acceptable, it was a cop out but it would not have been marketed to a wide audience if it had been that real. I’m just glad the movie is doing good even though it only brushed the surface, an although very little discussion can occur because of this movie maybe it can open the door for other movies with a deeper analysis of this subject matter to touch a broader audience with a good Box office draw. If people are truly ready to talk about these topics.
Reply
Gordon Franklin Terry Sr on 08-23-2011 10:50 AM
I KNOW . . . overly-sentimental and apologist; however “teary-eyed” boo-hoo-hooooooo movies that say “I’m sorry for the past, foregive me,” win awards . . . because . . . they PLAY OUR emotions like piano keys. or “push our buttons” like Hammond Organs.
As a concerned viewer, I decided to share some people’s thoughts on this controversial film that reflect what many outraged people feel as to why The Help should not be in contention for Best Picture.
Janson J. on 08-22-2011 06:49 PM
Nevermind the factual inaccuracies in The Help, or the attempt to credit the Civil Rights movement on “sisterly bonding”, or the fact that the author never paid her own Help for appropriating the story about the Viola-character’s child’s death. It’s the perfect film for idiots who actually bought the “post-racial” illusion. Try reading some of the borderline racist responses to the film’s black critics like Melissa Harris-Perry and Nelson George. Say, why aren’t they doing dishes?!?
I’m hoping the poor showings for “Conan” and “Fright Night” is as much a repudiation of the current marketing strategy in Hollywood. No familiar, or too cynical to find out? The final confirmation for what we’ve all feared was in this story at the Onion. Very few other entertainment sites seemed to notice.
As a concerned viewer, I decided to share some people’s thoughts on this controversial film that reflect what many outraged people feel as to why The Help should not be in contention for Best Picture.
Janson J. on 08-22-2011 06:49 PM
Nevermind the factual inaccuracies in The Help, or the attempt to credit the Civil Rights movement on “sisterly bonding”, or the fact that the author never paid her own Help for appropriating the story about the Viola-character’s child’s death. It’s the perfect film for idiots who actually bought the “post-racial” illusion. Try reading some of the borderline racist responses to the film’s black critics like Melissa Harris-Perry and Nelson George. Say, why aren’t they doing dishes?!?
I’m hoping the poor showings for “Conan” and “Fright Night” is as much a repudiation of the current marketing strategy in Hollywood. No familiar, or too cynical to find out? The final confirmation for what we’ve all feared was in this story at the Onion. Very few other entertainment sites seemed to notice.
ryan, I understand your frustration! And yes, it is indeed tedious to have to live with all the talentless art that is produced every single day in all corners of the world. I think we have reached a full agreement on this particular matter, though. Over and out (until next time, obviously;))
ryan, I understand your frustration! And yes, it is indeed tedious to have to live with all the talentless art that is produced every single day in all corners of the world. I think we have reached a full agreement on this particular matter, though. Over and out (until next time, obviously;))
amy
“wow the help has loads of hype from awardsdaily”
To be fair, when a relatively low-budgeted period drama makes 20M and takes No1 on its second weekend beating out openers like the sequel of a rather succesful franchise (Spy Kids), a big-budgeted action adventure (Conan), and a remarkably audience-friendly horror remake (Fright Night), THAT deserves an article, doesn’t it ? And it wasn’t even close, the No2 went to another holdover (and another AD-fave) …
amy
“wow the help has loads of hype from awardsdaily”
To be fair, when a relatively low-budgeted period drama makes 20M and takes No1 on its second weekend beating out openers like the sequel of a rather succesful franchise (Spy Kids), a big-budgeted action adventure (Conan), and a remarkably audience-friendly horror remake (Fright Night), THAT deserves an article, doesn’t it ? And it wasn’t even close, the No2 went to another holdover (and another AD-fave) …
I loved the movie. WhatI enjoyed most about it was that I’ve never seen a movie from the point of view of the Black maid from the South. That’s an interesting character, certianly a taboo character, and to see a movie which got me relating to and cheering for that character was a unique film experience. THE LONG WALK HOME with Whoopi Goldberg was pretty good back in 1990, but that movie did have anywhere near the emotional connection that this picture did.
Of course, being a white male, I cannot speak to how this film would play to the African-American community beyond my own observation of the audience with which I saw it. About 40% were Black, everyone seemed to like the movie.
Some of the complaints about the movie I understand, although I don’t personally find troubling… Why do movies dealing with the experiences of non-Whites always have a White person in the main role? OK, I see the gripe, but in this case, it is actually essential to the story (it’s about a Black maid explaining her experiences to a White person on the other side of the tracks… that sort fo requires that the Emma Stone
be White.)… The style of speech is stereotypical (“You is smart, you is important”). That didn’t seem too beyond my experience living in the south of blue-collar speech, but any movie like this is going to be dealing with a landmine in that regard. I haven;t read the book, and it seems that the speech in there is really what people are attacking. I don;t think problems people have with the book should be used in attacking the picture… The movie takes an abominable wrong in our nation’s history and turns it into a feel-good pablum for the masses.Again, I see the complaint, but here’s a hugely popular movie that will reach millions of people and can foster dialog about this portion of our nation’s history and that is what should happen, not an excoriating of the movie because it doesn;t match up with certain people’s views of how such history should be represented… Kathryn Stockett ripped off her maid. Wel, I personally don;t know both sides of this backstory, so I can;t speak to it, but I don’t usually judge a work of art upon its backstory, just the work of art itself. and in this case, the work of art is extraordinary.
BUT SOME OF THESE ATTACKS OF THE MOVIE ARE PREPOSTEROUS!!!! The most ridiculous one is that the movie perpetuates stereotypes about Black maids of the time/presents Blacks in a stereotypical manner. this is patently ridiculous. Abileen and Minnie are three-dimensional, well-rounded characters whose hopes, dreams, foibles, flaws, etc. we come to know intimately by the end of the movie. that’s actually the point of the movie is to take a character that we’ve always seen presented in a sterotypical fashion and show what the actual people who filled that role were like as three-dimensional human beings. The movie does that, it does it extraordinarily well, and that’s why the two actresses who got those parts are being touted for the Oscars and could well win.
Why aren’t the critics (not the ones who just didn;t like it, but those who think it is patently offensive) going after Viola Davis? Instead what I seem to hear is “the movie perpetuates sterotypes, but viola Davis is wonderful”. If the movie is so patently offensive (and I can;t understand why because I’m white, apparently), why praise Viola Davis? She’s an intelligent woman, a major Black actress, an Oscar nominee… she could have turned the role down. If the movie is so offensive, why praise the person whose presence in the picture lends it a great deal of its legitimacy? I would contend that the critics want to have their cake and eat it, too. Same thing we heard with DRIVING MISS DAISY… “it’s a stereotypical portrayal of African-Americans, but Morgan Freeman is wonderful”. You know, viola and morgan are two of my favorite actors, I’ve never seen them give a sterotypical portrayal of anything.
I also don;t buy the “Great White hope” argument. this is supposedly an offensive movie because it’s about a White person swooping down to save all the Black people. Uh, no. The catalyst of the movie’s events is white, sure, but really that is necessary for story purposes (the character in the position to write this and have it published would liely be White. Also, the collaboratioon of a White girl with the Black maids is what is causing all the tension in the story, raising the stakes, giving the characters the necesary sense of danger to make a compelling story). A lot of the irony of the movie is that the inexperienced Skeeter sor tof doesn’t know what she’s getting into while Abileen and Minnie know exactly what could happen them if they put their lives int he hands of this girl. Also, while Skeeter stands to gain with little to lose, Abileen and Minnie have little tangibly to gain and everything to lose, which gives their characters quite a bit of moral weight.
Ultimately, it’s a terrific picture. I don’t see that it trivialises anything, but people are free to disagree, of course. However, when the movie is attacked as blatantly offensive and no right-thinking person could disagree with that… well, then that just inspires people like me togo and see it. I never would have had any interest in this picture if it hadn’t stirred up controversy. So to those of you who seek to attack the movie for being so offensive… thanks! Loved it! wouldn’t have seen it if it weren’t for you!
I loved the movie. WhatI enjoyed most about it was that I’ve never seen a movie from the point of view of the Black maid from the South. That’s an interesting character, certianly a taboo character, and to see a movie which got me relating to and cheering for that character was a unique film experience. THE LONG WALK HOME with Whoopi Goldberg was pretty good back in 1990, but that movie did have anywhere near the emotional connection that this picture did.
Of course, being a white male, I cannot speak to how this film would play to the African-American community beyond my own observation of the audience with which I saw it. About 40% were Black, everyone seemed to like the movie.
Some of the complaints about the movie I understand, although I don’t personally find troubling… Why do movies dealing with the experiences of non-Whites always have a White person in the main role? OK, I see the gripe, but in this case, it is actually essential to the story (it’s about a Black maid explaining her experiences to a White person on the other side of the tracks… that sort fo requires that the Emma Stone
be White.)… The style of speech is stereotypical (“You is smart, you is important”). That didn’t seem too beyond my experience living in the south of blue-collar speech, but any movie like this is going to be dealing with a landmine in that regard. I haven;t read the book, and it seems that the speech in there is really what people are attacking. I don;t think problems people have with the book should be used in attacking the picture… The movie takes an abominable wrong in our nation’s history and turns it into a feel-good pablum for the masses.Again, I see the complaint, but here’s a hugely popular movie that will reach millions of people and can foster dialog about this portion of our nation’s history and that is what should happen, not an excoriating of the movie because it doesn;t match up with certain people’s views of how such history should be represented… Kathryn Stockett ripped off her maid. Wel, I personally don;t know both sides of this backstory, so I can;t speak to it, but I don’t usually judge a work of art upon its backstory, just the work of art itself. and in this case, the work of art is extraordinary.
BUT SOME OF THESE ATTACKS OF THE MOVIE ARE PREPOSTEROUS!!!! The most ridiculous one is that the movie perpetuates stereotypes about Black maids of the time/presents Blacks in a stereotypical manner. this is patently ridiculous. Abileen and Minnie are three-dimensional, well-rounded characters whose hopes, dreams, foibles, flaws, etc. we come to know intimately by the end of the movie. that’s actually the point of the movie is to take a character that we’ve always seen presented in a sterotypical fashion and show what the actual people who filled that role were like as three-dimensional human beings. The movie does that, it does it extraordinarily well, and that’s why the two actresses who got those parts are being touted for the Oscars and could well win.
Why aren’t the critics (not the ones who just didn;t like it, but those who think it is patently offensive) going after Viola Davis? Instead what I seem to hear is “the movie perpetuates sterotypes, but viola Davis is wonderful”. If the movie is so patently offensive (and I can;t understand why because I’m white, apparently), why praise Viola Davis? She’s an intelligent woman, a major Black actress, an Oscar nominee… she could have turned the role down. If the movie is so offensive, why praise the person whose presence in the picture lends it a great deal of its legitimacy? I would contend that the critics want to have their cake and eat it, too. Same thing we heard with DRIVING MISS DAISY… “it’s a stereotypical portrayal of African-Americans, but Morgan Freeman is wonderful”. You know, viola and morgan are two of my favorite actors, I’ve never seen them give a sterotypical portrayal of anything.
I also don;t buy the “Great White hope” argument. this is supposedly an offensive movie because it’s about a White person swooping down to save all the Black people. Uh, no. The catalyst of the movie’s events is white, sure, but really that is necessary for story purposes (the character in the position to write this and have it published would liely be White. Also, the collaboratioon of a White girl with the Black maids is what is causing all the tension in the story, raising the stakes, giving the characters the necesary sense of danger to make a compelling story). A lot of the irony of the movie is that the inexperienced Skeeter sor tof doesn’t know what she’s getting into while Abileen and Minnie know exactly what could happen them if they put their lives int he hands of this girl. Also, while Skeeter stands to gain with little to lose, Abileen and Minnie have little tangibly to gain and everything to lose, which gives their characters quite a bit of moral weight.
Ultimately, it’s a terrific picture. I don’t see that it trivialises anything, but people are free to disagree, of course. However, when the movie is attacked as blatantly offensive and no right-thinking person could disagree with that… well, then that just inspires people like me togo and see it. I never would have had any interest in this picture if it hadn’t stirred up controversy. So to those of you who seek to attack the movie for being so offensive… thanks! Loved it! wouldn’t have seen it if it weren’t for you!
The International Federation of Film Critics (FIPRESCI) grants its Grand Prix for Best Film of the year to TERRENCE MALICK’S THE TREE OF LIFE. The prize is the result of a vote by 205 critics across the world, all members of FIPRESCI on any feature-length film from the previous 12 months. The prize will be presented at the opening gala of San Sebastian Festival’s 59th edition on September 16th at the Kursaal Auditorium.
Tiff schedules are out ,wow the help has loads of hype from awardsdaily
The International Federation of Film Critics (FIPRESCI) grants its Grand Prix for Best Film of the year to TERRENCE MALICK’S THE TREE OF LIFE. The prize is the result of a vote by 205 critics across the world, all members of FIPRESCI on any feature-length film from the previous 12 months. The prize will be presented at the opening gala of San Sebastian Festival’s 59th edition on September 16th at the Kursaal Auditorium.
Tiff schedules are out ,wow the help has loads of hype from awardsdaily
Your distinction between self-censorship and “thoughtful discretion” is ok in practice, I guess (and most authors would certainly benefit from what you refer to as “thoughtful discretion”, not least in the concrete example you mention), but in theory I think it is a difficult double standard to uphold. As I have been saying repeatedly, you cannot make that kind of claims on behalf of artistic utterances. They don’t belong in the same domains, so to speak. With regards to a standard of “thoughtful discretion” many, I repeat MANY, of the greatest artistic triumphs of mankind would never have been realized. I mean, Madame Bovary, just to name an example, is an artistic triumph through and through, but it is not exactly “thoughtful” or “discrete” when applied to the values and norms of 19th century France, is it?
So what I’m saying is this: art should never try to conform in principle, in practice, yes, I agree with you on a concrete example like Kathryn Stockett.
julian the emperor, I do absolutely see what you’re saying.
I know it’s a strange attitude for me to take: Frustration that a writer isn’t as talented or sensitive as I think she needs to be. I wouldn’t be bothered if she wrote about something less important, right?
It’s just disappointment, I think. Can we call it that? Disappointed that this is the kind of book that becomes a bestseller, and disappointed the movie didn’t do anything (in my view) to elevate it.
But the book has touched millions of people and the movie has touched millions more. That’s wonderful — for all those millions of folks. The other grousing thousands of us will get over it.
My biggest concern: I can’t help feeling that it hurts very the cause it seeks to help. Because it teaches a lot of wrong lessons, and the lesson itself is too important to muddle up.
Your distinction between self-censorship and “thoughtful discretion” is ok in practice, I guess (and most authors would certainly benefit from what you refer to as “thoughtful discretion”, not least in the concrete example you mention), but in theory I think it is a difficult double standard to uphold. As I have been saying repeatedly, you cannot make that kind of claims on behalf of artistic utterances. They don’t belong in the same domains, so to speak. With regards to a standard of “thoughtful discretion” many, I repeat MANY, of the greatest artistic triumphs of mankind would never have been realized. I mean, Madame Bovary, just to name an example, is an artistic triumph through and through, but it is not exactly “thoughtful” or “discrete” when applied to the values and norms of 19th century France, is it?
So what I’m saying is this: art should never try to conform in principle, in practice, yes, I agree with you on a concrete example like Kathryn Stockett.
julian the emperor, I do absolutely see what you’re saying.
I know it’s a strange attitude for me to take: Frustration that a writer isn’t as talented or sensitive as I think she needs to be. I wouldn’t be bothered if she wrote about something less important, right?
It’s just disappointment, I think. Can we call it that? Disappointed that this is the kind of book that becomes a bestseller, and disappointed the movie didn’t do anything (in my view) to elevate it.
But the book has touched millions of people and the movie has touched millions more. That’s wonderful — for all those millions of folks. The other grousing thousands of us will get over it.
My biggest concern: I can’t help feeling that it hurts very the cause it seeks to help. Because it teaches a lot of wrong lessons, and the lesson itself is too important to muddle up.
Ryan Adams
The Help’s costume designer, Sharen Davis is also a two-time Academy Award nominee, she got the nods for Dreamgirls and Ray…and could get her third for ‘The Help’.
So Viola Davis could be the fourth African-American woman and the second African-American actress to get two (or more) Oscar nominations.
And if Jennifer Hudson’s Winnie turns out to be good, who knows, there could be the third African-American actress with two nominations this year, too. Although the trailer was bad in my opinion, the role is rather ‘Oscary’.
Ryan Adams
The Help’s costume designer, Sharen Davis is also a two-time Academy Award nominee, she got the nods for Dreamgirls and Ray…and could get her third for ‘The Help’.
So Viola Davis could be the fourth African-American woman and the second African-American actress to get two (or more) Oscar nominations.
And if Jennifer Hudson’s Winnie turns out to be good, who knows, there could be the third African-American actress with two nominations this year, too. Although the trailer was bad in my opinion, the role is rather ‘Oscary’.
Ryan, maybe I should have proceeded my comment in a different way. Because I actually agree with you in almost all specifics when it comes to your comments on this touchy subject. I really do. And yes, there are very few Eminems and Roths out there.
And besides, I wasn’t directly aiming at you when using that forbidden “moralizing” accusation. That was a general sentiment concerning a general stance that says that art has to compromise and conform to any political, societal or moral agenda. Because I think that is truly a dangerous prospect.
What could be inferred from your refutation of white writers “getting it right” on black issues is that somehow those same writers should leave the topics aside or censor their work so that it conforms to “black standards” of approval. That is, my friend, very problematic.
As I said, that is something you might infer from your general skepticism towards white writers dealing with black issues, but not something that I would personally accuse you of. I would never do that. I know that you are a not a “moralizing” kind of person (your writing on this page certainly give me no hints for assuming that!) I cheered your steadfast refusal to bow down to any easy condemnation of Lars Von Trier’s silly press performance in Cannes, to bring you just one example.
Not so. I don’t think any writer should be concerned about getting anyone’s “approval”
My own concern — and I feel it very strongly in this instance — involves writers with seemingly so little regard for the sensitivities of the subjects they tackle that they hurt and disrespect large numbers of people they ostensibly care about. Just depressing to me to see the blundering clumsiness cause pain to people who go to this movie expecting and deserving better.
I’ve seen dozens and dozens of reactions like this:
We’re always in pretty close agreement on most topics, so it doesn’t trouble me that our opinions diverge a little today. Just that I want to make clear, I’m not talking about any kind of censorship. (How would censorship even occur? Impossible. Can anyone censor Rush Limbaugh?)
“self-censorship”?– to me that’s just a harsh way of saying I wish writers would try to have a little “discretion” or “thoughtful consideration”
Most of us self-censor what we say and write 100 times a day, don’t we? Those of us who don’t are often well-known assholes, right?
Please don’t say I’m suggesting writers “censor” their work. All I’m asking is that they “refine” their work.
They won’t. There’s nothing I can do about it. It’s not a wish that can be enforced.
If nobody cares what large segments of the black population think, they sure as heck won’t be conforming to my desires. That won’t stop me from having those desires, or from expressing them.
Concrete example: Had I been Kathryn Stockett’s editor, I would have a huge problem with her insistence on writing all the black dialogue in broken phonetic dialect — while all the white characters get their words spelled correctly. I would have suggested considering changing that to at least show that Southern white ladies speak with some weird pronunciations too.
Maybe that editorial suggestion was made — hard to imagine it never came up. But if it did, it was ignored. So see, no censorship or interference took place. But I think it’s a shame — and shameful — that the author couldn’t see how odd that would look on the page, and chose to keep it anyway. Knowing full well that it would tickle white readers and offend black readers.
Ryan, maybe I should have proceeded my comment in a different way. Because I actually agree with you in almost all specifics when it comes to your comments on this touchy subject. I really do. And yes, there are very few Eminems and Roths out there.
And besides, I wasn’t directly aiming at you when using that forbidden “moralizing” accusation. That was a general sentiment concerning a general stance that says that art has to compromise and conform to any political, societal or moral agenda. Because I think that is truly a dangerous prospect.
What could be inferred from your refutation of white writers “getting it right” on black issues is that somehow those same writers should leave the topics aside or censor their work so that it conforms to “black standards” of approval. That is, my friend, very problematic.
As I said, that is something you might infer from your general skepticism towards white writers dealing with black issues, but not something that I would personally accuse you of. I would never do that. I know that you are a not a “moralizing” kind of person (your writing on this page certainly give me no hints for assuming that!) I cheered your steadfast refusal to bow down to any easy condemnation of Lars Von Trier’s silly press performance in Cannes, to bring you just one example.
Not so. I don’t think any writer should be concerned about getting anyone’s “approval”
My own concern — and I feel it very strongly in this instance — involves writers with seemingly so little regard for the sensitivities of the subjects they tackle that they hurt and disrespect large numbers of people they ostensibly care about. Just depressing to me to see the blundering clumsiness cause pain to people who go to this movie expecting and deserving better.
I’ve seen dozens and dozens of reactions like this:
We’re always in pretty close agreement on most topics, so it doesn’t trouble me that our opinions diverge a little today. Just that I want to make clear, I’m not talking about any kind of censorship. (How would censorship even occur? Impossible. Can anyone censor Rush Limbaugh?)
“self-censorship”?– to me that’s just a harsh way of saying I wish writers would try to have a little “discretion” or “thoughtful consideration”
Most of us self-censor what we say and write 100 times a day, don’t we? Those of us who don’t are often well-known assholes, right?
Please don’t say I’m suggesting writers “censor” their work. All I’m asking is that they “refine” their work.
They won’t. There’s nothing I can do about it. It’s not a wish that can be enforced.
If nobody cares what large segments of the black population think, they sure as heck won’t be conforming to my desires. That won’t stop me from having those desires, or from expressing them.
Concrete example: Had I been Kathryn Stockett’s editor, I would have a huge problem with her insistence on writing all the black dialogue in broken phonetic dialect — while all the white characters get their words spelled correctly. I would have suggested considering changing that to at least show that Southern white ladies speak with some weird pronunciations too.
Maybe that editorial suggestion was made — hard to imagine it never came up. But if it did, it was ignored. So see, no censorship or interference took place. But I think it’s a shame — and shameful — that the author couldn’t see how odd that would look on the page, and chose to keep it anyway. Knowing full well that it would tickle white readers and offend black readers.
So if Viola gets nominated, she will be only the second black woman in the academy’s history to collect two nominations. The other one being Whoopi who won for her second nomination in Ghost 20 years ago. Insane right!
Thanks for that, gerd. I tweeted you comment.
You’re right — Viola will be only the second actress with 2 nominations. But a twitter pal, @dialmformovies, refined the answer:
So if Viola gets nominated, she will be only the second black woman in the academy’s history to collect two nominations. The other one being Whoopi who won for her second nomination in Ghost 20 years ago. Insane right!
Thanks for that, gerd. I tweeted you comment.
You’re right — Viola will be only the second actress with 2 nominations. But a twitter pal, @dialmformovies, refined the answer:
This reminds me of the uproar over Dreamgirls among some in the black community.
1. Instead of the film pretending to be an amalgamation of black lives in the music industry as the Broadway production was, it was the story of the Supremes.
2. Jimmy Early overdosed on drugs, because apparently that’s what always happens to unhappy black people who don’t have their AHA moments.
3. The original Broadway cast was essentially ignored (aside from Loretta Devine who appeared in the film and on the soundtrack, Obba Babatunde who was offered the role of Marty, and – if you think she counts – Diana Ross, who actually put out her feelers for a role, and this was verified).
Jet magazine actually had a long article about it that was almost as long as the cover story, and the performers including Tony-nominees Sheryl Lee Ralph and Tony-winners Cleavant Derricks mentioned how much of their ideas and creations and efforts were scripted into the production with credit given only to Krieger and Eyen. It’s amazing. Effie was supposed to die after the first Act (once Nell Carter dropped out of production to star in Gimme A Break!) but Jennifer Holliday fought for the Act 2 resurgence (selfish reasons, sure, but that was her work, nonetheless.
To quote: “That’s one of the sad things of being a young artist, signing a bad contract, whereas you are a creative contributor to a project like this and you share in absolutely nothing because of a bad contract and because of the kind of legal people who would take advantage of that,” Ralph told JET. “That’s terrible to me because we got ripped off for a dollar. They took everything from us. They made art into real life.”
Reminded me of some of the arguments I’m reading here about “The Help”.
This reminds me of the uproar over Dreamgirls among some in the black community.
1. Instead of the film pretending to be an amalgamation of black lives in the music industry as the Broadway production was, it was the story of the Supremes.
2. Jimmy Early overdosed on drugs, because apparently that’s what always happens to unhappy black people who don’t have their AHA moments.
3. The original Broadway cast was essentially ignored (aside from Loretta Devine who appeared in the film and on the soundtrack, Obba Babatunde who was offered the role of Marty, and – if you think she counts – Diana Ross, who actually put out her feelers for a role, and this was verified).
Jet magazine actually had a long article about it that was almost as long as the cover story, and the performers including Tony-nominees Sheryl Lee Ralph and Tony-winners Cleavant Derricks mentioned how much of their ideas and creations and efforts were scripted into the production with credit given only to Krieger and Eyen. It’s amazing. Effie was supposed to die after the first Act (once Nell Carter dropped out of production to star in Gimme A Break!) but Jennifer Holliday fought for the Act 2 resurgence (selfish reasons, sure, but that was her work, nonetheless.
To quote: “That’s one of the sad things of being a young artist, signing a bad contract, whereas you are a creative contributor to a project like this and you share in absolutely nothing because of a bad contract and because of the kind of legal people who would take advantage of that,” Ralph told JET. “That’s terrible to me because we got ripped off for a dollar. They took everything from us. They made art into real life.”
Reminded me of some of the arguments I’m reading here about “The Help”.
The Blind Side is a bad comparison. Fried Green Tomatoes is a better one.
The Blind Side is a bad comparison. Fried Green Tomatoes is a better one.