One of the more reasoned and powerful voices of insight on Hollywood controversies of late is Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who writes about Green Book in the Hollywood Reporter. His thoughts run counter to the irrational hive mind — which is a hammer always looking for a nail, where our fear, panic and pain is given over to our worst instincts. Abdul-Jabbar is always thoughtful, always truthful and balanced in how he approaches scandals involving race.
We’ve come to a bizarre stage in our evolution in how we cover film. Now, not only are films “vetted” to see if they correctly align with our utopian vision of ourselves, but also filmmakers — people go looking for dirt to expose. Clickbait, in some cases, but the kind of stuff that makes the hive mind burst into waves of hysteria that can’t be quelled. We’ve seen it happen more than once. We’ll see it happen a lot before all is said and done. But we need voices like Abdul-Jabbar’s. We need more rational pushback to help guide our ship in a better direction.
Here are a few key quotes:
The character of Shirley is alienated from his sense of self-identity as a musician who wants to play classical music but is forced to play popular music and as a black man who is too educated to be embraced by some blacks but still treated by whites as less than human. He’s also alienated from his own sexuality. He has so much to hide from the outside world that he’s created an acceptable persona for that world. To show him cut off from his family, whatever the facts, is an effective way to emphasize the loneliness and despair that people like him endure.
The other main controversy is whether the film is black enough. Almost every time a film is released that features racism, the work faces the litmus test of “integrity to blackness.” That’s a fair test because movies have a long history of being condescending, reductive and insulting when representing black people or black culture, even when they are well-meaning. With Green Book, cultural critics wonder why the actual Negro Motorist’s Green Book — which listed places throughout the country where black people could safely shop, eat and lodge — wasn’t featured more prominently as a historical icon. Answer: The film implies that there is no “safe” place for blacks because the entire country — from Tony’s kitchen in the Bronx to a concert hall in Georgia — is infected with racism, whether it’s overt, passive or institutional.
Some critics wonder why the story is told from Tony’s point of view rather than from Dr. Shirley’s. Doesn’t that make Shirley merely a stereotypical device, such as the “magical negro,” who exists in the story only to guide the white hero, Tony, through his character arc? Answer: As in all buddy films, whether Rain Man, Lethal Weapon or 48 Hours, both men are changed by their interactions with the other. As Tony reveals to Shirley, he was brought up in the same neighborhood as his parents and will likely die in that neighborhood. Though certainly not to the same extent as Shirley, Tony is imprisoned by geography, lack of education and lack of options. Exposure to Shirley changes his perception. Shirley, who has forced himself to be so guarded that he is imprisoned in his lavish apartment, allows himself to feel friendship and engage in the world that he has kept at a distance.
The film is much more effective from Tony’s point of view because the audience that might be most changed by watching it is the white audience. When black people see a movie about historical racism like Nate Parker’s The Birth of a Nation or Steve McQueen’s 12 Years a Slave, we know exactly what kind of horrific cruelty we’re going to witness. Our perception of racism will not be changed because we live it daily. We also know that after viewing the movie, some white people will be self-congratulatory and dismissive by saying, “Well, at least it’s not like that anymore.” But others will be moved to see how those events in history have shaped our current challenges. Black people watching Green Book will recognize Dr. Shirley’s painful journey and be inspired by his accomplishments no more and no less than if the story had been from his point of view.
Finally, there is the question of whether the story should have been told by three white men: director and co-writer Peter Farrelly, Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son) and co-producer Brian Currie. Artistically, it shouldn’t make a difference. A good artist must be able to re-create characters who are different than themselves. While I’m aware that blacks in the film industry need greater representation — and I strongly advocate for them — I’m also aware that this was a passion project that might not have been made if not for the commitment of these men.
Please take time to read the full piece — but of the things done in the past, Abdul-Jabbar says:
Complicating the situation are some boneheaded acts by two of the filmmakers. Farrelly admits that in 1998 he flashed his penis as a joke to There’s Something About Mary star Cameron Diaz and to movie executive Tom Rothman. Vallelonga confirms that in 2015 he tweeted support of Trump’s false claim that thousands of American Muslims had been seen celebrating the tragedies of 9/11. Both men have apologized and disavowed their past behavior, which I take as being sincere. Neither act affects the merit of the film. Actually, the controversy embraces the movie’s point that we can learn from the past to set us on a more enlightened path for the future.
We need more voices of reason like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, less finger pointing, less mass hysteria, less reflexive outrage, and less virtual stoning. Folks, we’re all in this together, stuck together. We must try harder, not by ferreting out anyone suspected of witchcraft, but by listening, communicating, interpreting, and ultimately, finding a way to build a better world. Weirdly enough, of all of the films in the race, only Green Book really tries to communicate that message. It’s a messy and complicated message but a worthy message all the same.
I think Jabbar is right.
You know, despite all these “controversies” I can still see Green Book weathering the storm and going all the way. It’s almost like being a Trump supporter…once you are on board the train, you ain’t getting off. It’s starts with a little thing you can forgive (Viggo saying the n-word) and then as things go on, more problems arise, but you are committed. Ali just won Critics Choice, so it hasn’t been completely shunned yet. Of course, if it does win it will be mentioned alongside Crash as the worst Best Pic but it seems you are going to make anyone happy this year. As I look through the comments I see every film (barring the Favourite) being accused of being the worst potential Best Pic winner.
I totally agree with this article BUT on the other hand, IndieWire posted great story about First Man and screenwriter Josh Singer, which is spot on counter-argument to Abdul-Jabbar
“I don’t quite know why people wind up taking different paths, but I do feel that we as screenwriters, and as filmmakers, really should have more conversations about this, and have more of a dialogue about this, about what is kosher. … To me, there’s something really powerful in telling history as it is, in trying to bring history back, and letting that history speak for itself, and letting us learn from it.”
https://www.indiewire.com/2019/01/first-man-authentic-biopic-screenwriter-josh-singer-1202033682/
I’d be interested in getting Singer on a panel with Aaron Sorkin about this, as Sorkin has explicitly hewed to a contrary view, that “I don’t want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling.”
Singer is certainly admirable with his approach, but it was one that still failed to protect “First Man” from backlash itself.
As Jazz found out from Josh Singer in her epic interview, the most poetic moment in First Man is an incident, a detail, for which there is no verifiable evidence in the historical record.
It’s something that likely might well have happened, but we can never know. It feels right to say it happened. But did it?
The bracelet in the crater.
Well, yes, but as Kate Erbland wrote “it wasn’t the product of easy choices”.
It was worth it though, my favourite moment of the movie.
I love it how the movie takes full form in that moment. Just when you think it can’t simply offer you anything more after the almost surreal landing sequence and dreamlike moonwalk, it suddenly does. It hits you out of nowhere, from a direction you least expected, but oh what a perfect and powerful moment it is. Everything just perfectly falls into place. It’s as if someone threw a jigsaw puzzle in the air and it landed ideally assembled. And the fact that we don’t know if it really happened makes it even better. The aura of mystery adds a lot. I can’t wait to rewatch this movie.
Not showing everything is not the same as being false.
Not sure where I saw this said (maybe right here at AD), but (for example) we know the astronauts surely peed a lot in 1962. They peed every day. The movie never shows us a single splash of astronaut pee. That doesn’t mean First Man is fake.
And if he would have diffrent approach there would be no backlash? Actually “the flag problem” was his (or Chazelles) creative decission to NOT show everything, as Ryan stated. So in that case he was sort of moving away from his principles.
It’s kinda like the quote from “The Fog of War”. There are so many variables to take into account, so many threads, sub-plots, episodic events or long term and unfilmable processes, that there is simply no way to recreate history on screen one-to-one. A filmmaker has to make chocices, from day one. Usually the chocices are about what to show and what not to show, and by doing that you begin to skew reality and start to make it you own. IMHO there is no way that a movie can tell a story exacly how it played out in real life, but that’s cool because movies aren’t about that. Moreso, I think they shouldn’t. “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story” – there’s some profound wisdom in that quote.
perfect featured comment.
I agree.
I think Singer speaks about filmmaker respect and responsibility when dealing with true stories. f.e. the scene with glass from First Man that he describes is great example of how to create dramatic tension and tell a good story AND stay true to real life character. The key is consultation – Singer consulted with family and close ones on every step of the way – maybe that was missing from Green Book writing process.
I also think this kind of discussion (“about what is kosher”) should take place, and actually the shitstorm around Green Book (as bad as it is) is great oportunity to engage it.
I very very keen to see the ( positive buzz) bout green book and very much fear a smear campaign by rogue elements within Hollywood and indeed academy from realm of the misguided political correctness train/ bandwagon , which yet again will detail even more profound Oscar winner in black panther getting it deserved win. Having said that I keen hear everyone feedback is ” green book” one most significant social films of the last decade in the modern era? Or is that going too far. In terms films that reflect social challenged today where does green book rate compared to rest since the turn of century ?
Reason a smear campaign in any given Oscar year is u just is film should be elevated as best picture contender / winner on it own merit not destroyed or elevated by the disruptive minority in awards season.
If green book wjms best PIC it only be fair on producers and studio behind it film win standing on it own artistic merit as I feel.it deserves too not coz of unfounded slander against from what I head is very constructive even entertaining film am I right ?
Great points made. I can’t say it more simpler than that.
Green Book isn’t high art, but at least I didn’t want to slit my wrists from utter boredom (thanks, Roma). I was highly entertained. I think if Farrelly was another Weinstein, it would have come out by now. These takedowns of movies are ugly and pathetic political tactics disguised as outrage. Let movies be movies.
Regina King-supporting actress
Nia Long-suppoting actress-Roxanne Roxanne
Regina Hall-actress
Russell Hornsby-suppt actor
A perfectly fine story adapted into a less than exceptional movie. There’s no crime in that.
I’m a SAG actor/voter – I am voting for Mortensen for Best Actor and Ali for Best Supp Actor. IF it were nominated for Ensemble, it would have gotten my vote (vs Blackklansman). Green Book is a terrific script with 2 phenomonal screen partners. BTW, none of this rumor, accusations, N-word use and scuttlebut stuff has affected my voting one ounce. Never has. Great acting is great acting.
I wrote in an earlier post, that the family must not have been paid $$$. https://www.showbiz411.com/2019/01/11/oscar-slagging-2019-dirt-thrown-against-green-book-other-films-is-carefully-orchestrated-and-not-a-coincidence
I will carry the torch for rational discourse.
Outrage is awesome when it produces debate. Once outrage mutates into fanatacism… then it becomes counterproductive, because we all FEEL (in CAPITOL letters) about things. What really matters, is if we are willing to engage others and discourse together in a thoughtful and respectful manner. There will always be other people who are !ZEALOT! about things. But the goal HAS to be finding common ground, no matter how incapable that may seem.
That may seem naive and riduculous to many, but still, the point still stands.
In short the fuss should be about how bad academy look if they give award to any nominee in principal in Hollywood who partook in external activity in past no matter how long or recent ago that was not in line with moral example every single cast and crew every single film should measure up to only then all of Oscars moral serminising lecturing to public will public take seriously.
Yes I have huge concerns for moral double standards Hollywood and negative way Oscar audiences viciously respond by not being counted part if Oscars TV ratings. And it not about one person . If another actor this year other than ga- ga did something as bad even worse then aorwadibg immoral msgs go counter to what academy should stan d for I come down hard on them . If it was another producer hypothetically nor Weinstein I come down as hard on them.
As humans sometimes we guilty having double standards but when you are professional on world stage you have duty if care responsibility set best example you possibly can Hollywood must learn from this Principal or die death of a thousand cuts.
I think it appalling the current issue on issues with green book some others I fear unjust smear campaign focus should be other matter I raised not stupidity undermines films filmmakers that far from do anything wrong seeking convey thoughtful thought provoking cinema again double standard s in Hollywood and it killing academy lack of public respect and their ratings we can see it why can’t they ?
“less mass hysteria, less reflexive outrage, and less virtual stoning”
Accusing people with different opinions about a movie of being “hysterical and reflexive” is not rising above the outrage culture, it’s just throwing the outrage back in the other direction and isn’t any more productive than, say, calling the movies fans “unthinking racist simpletons” or something. There are many, many, many perfectly legitimate reasons to not like Green Book not everyone who disagrees about a movie is just trying to prove they’re “woke.”
Very well expressed; I agree whole-heartedly.
The fuss should be around the extraordinary failure for Oscar learn lessons as consequence of Weinstein affair as it just play public for fools and degrades in this case honest moral standards all who nominated should adhere to in interest of setting good example for their fans as academy strive if they serious clean up there act they should not pledge ignorance to seriousness of ga- ga or even if it were any other actor I don’t give shit nobody should lame feeble excuse some defenders of ga- ga have that it was ” few years ago” doesn’t matter if it was ten years ago or not fact of matter if Oscar fair dingkom bout cleaning their act they won’t vote for individual who knowingly actively Starr’s in vid Clip along immoral individual imlying what be seen as “pro- rape” video…no!!
This is at least half the reason the Academy exists I encourage those you have moral concionse to boycott Oscars if any actor who done wrongdoing knowingly spreading immoral disgusting msgs and withholding this till during awards season rather cone clean before Oscars to boycott awards if ga- ga wins.
If you watch it sure your choice but what basis is it right for world leading authority in film awards to get away with moral double standards ? After weinstein .affair countless huge mistakes academy truly made has occurred to some pple their traditional audience support base with ratings gone out window within few years after double standards immorality of Hollywood ?
Oh not just ga- ga it joke on Oscar and Hollywood best they can do for a host is disgraceful vile Kevin hart.
No I not just targeting ga- ga it simple case whoever individual is trying get away with unfair advantage over other Oscar contenders .
The public have had enough bout Oscars double standards..there conservative audience base that rightfully shows zero tolerance for academy coming down hard on a Weinstein but considering ga- ga for Oscar win is breathtakingly awful for academy’s credibility in eyes of public .
There should therefore be universal standard. After year after Roman Polanski”s win don’t underestimate decline ensured gradually following year in part cos conservative key TV audience base can’t stomach how once honourable academy lost it moral compass.
There no witch hunt against ga- ga but facts be laid bare she admitted she knew whom she was performing with and his crooked history still did it …and so this information was withheld from international media until this award season so are Oscar dumb as well as ignorant ?
If academy want to be embrace certain .Films to preach to public Of morality in their msgs, academy never be taken seriously so long as they support any Hollywood celebrity who knowingly did very bad thing of participating in. External activities that go against everything oscaratabd for. And on other hand trying lecture public insult our intelligence by taking generic grandiose statements of what academy won’t tolerate .
If ga- ga wins I accept that new addition to history but I warn academy right now u only lose more audience in your ratings there be consequence for the academy ( and even with regards to my predictions concerning other flaws and negative impact on academy by poor audience no I end up proven be right ) .after hyperventilating preaching of Oscar and ” me too” of last year and they can’t measure up in public eye to their own standard .
Time has come in all Oscar categories to recognise quality of consistency of individual history in addition yo merit of role nominated for to ensure a consistent moral code that may lead to a chance in future of regaining it lost viewers but just won’t happen if they continue their unhealthy fetish with the ” hot” celebrity of year.
So time oscars short termism whole Industry bigger implications of decisions they make. U have be naive to frankly if u condoned such breathtaking hypocrisy as academy continue to do .
But hopefully Glenn close focuses on consistent brilliant performances all her movies not headline grabbing stunts like ga- ga does isn’t that type of integrity Glenn close represents that Oscar should aspir to embrace ?
In addition to all of his excellent points, on this:
“Some critics wonder why the story is told from Tony’s point of view rather than from Dr. Shirley’s.”
I would also say that it makes way more sense for it to be from the point of view of the more Average Joe, identifiable character, who’s also more open about who he is and easy to read, than from that of the more enigmatic, introverted, complex character. It seems more effective to me to (as the movie does) first introduce the former, as the representative of the audience, then slowly reveal the latter, first as seen by Tony on their initial meeting, with his prejudices and all that, then understood more and more by both him and the audience, as the narrative progresses, until he is there in (more or less) his full complexity as a human being. I’m sure the other way around would work too, but it wouldn’t be as effective, if you ask me. Both characters would be harder to identify with and/or root for from the start. And, as a result, if nothing else, the movie would certainly be less popular with general audiences. (Which I’m sure would, by contrast, make it a lot more agreeable to both critics and the online crowd.)
Excellent point of view.
Spot on.
I’m very impressed with KAJ’s understanding of the workings of drama and narrative.
Why are you surprised?
Because, for his profession, he is not a drama writer/director/critic? And I didn’t say surprise, I said impressed. 🙂
And just like after John Singleton’s defense of Green Book, let’s commence with the white people telling the black people they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Wasn’t aware Singleton penned something in support of Green Book. Comparing Farrelly to Billy Wilder is pretty high praise!
Thanks for bringing it to my attention!
You’re welcome. I actually posted it on here the day it was published and didn’t credit the author because I was baiting someone to disagree with me so I could reveal who actually wrote it and see if their minds suddenly changed, but my plan backfired and the estimed Ryan Adams made it a “featured comment” after being impressed with the piece, which left me with the embarrassment of confessing my plan and ultimately hampering my reputation.
But after seeing the reaction to KAJ’s similar take on the film, it doesn’t seem anyone is more qualified to defend the film than anyone else. Doesn’t seem to change anyone’s minds.
Singleton is not the only one who has come out to support the movie. Quincy Jones and Harry Belafonte did too.
It’s one thing if you just think it’s not a good movie and worth any awards consideration for that reason. But all these “controversies” people have tried to create over the last few years to disqualify films, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I never even saw Birth of a Nation, but it went from “the best film out of Sundance”, to “it was never a good movie to begin with” after the controversy struck and I just don’t buy that. Hell, I’m surprised someone didn’t try to find a reason to sabotage Spotlight….perhaps claim child molestors deserve love too?
I have found that when minorities complain about the way prejudice and discrimination are portrayed in popular media, their concerns should be taken very seriously.
This is a very nicely written article by Sasha with very persuasive quotations from KAJ. Unfortunately I still don’t understand the passion for this film. I agree it tells a valuable story with two good central performances, and that Ali plays a noble character who has so much screentime compared to his fellow nominees that it’s hard to see him losing now. I’m a big fan of mainstream films done well, that make you feel, that are entertaining and tell a complete story with a beginning, middle, and end, something Hollywood seems to have forgotten how to do lately. But this was a strong year for crowd-pleasing films. I just don’t get the hoopla over this film other than, if we’re being honest, any project that deals directly with racism is automatically deemed a more high-profile contender in today’s climate. I didn’t care for BlacKkKlansman much either, but at least it’s unique enough as a piece of incendiary filmmaking, while not inspiring the buzz that GB has. It’s the emperor’s new clothes with this one, and at least they aren’t giving the due (not really overdue) Viggo his Best Actor Oscar for this borderline hammy/schmaltzy role.
I wonder if these attacks on Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody are coming from the Roma camp . Green Book is a terrific film and Viggo and Ali are wonderful in it .
They’re most likely coming from the camp of people with too much time on their hands.
This.
Just a guess — maybe these attacks coming from the camp of people who think the film is wildly overrated and retrograde?
I have a few objections to KAJ’s points, but overall I do agree with him. Didn’t he also defend Three Billboards last year?
Correct.
I didn’t agree with KAJ then either. Maybe one day, when Abdul-Jabbar is no longer around, someone will make a film about his life, without giving his family any head’s-up about its writing or production. If Abdul-Jabbar’s family has any issues with how he or their family is depicted or characterized, another celebrity will similarly dismiss their concerns because ”discrepancies,” ”plot details” and ”mundane facts,” as he puts it, ”don’t really matter.” …
At least Mahershala Ali has the class and empathy to reach out to Don Shirley’s family, apologize and acknowledge them. In the press room at the Golden Globes, Ali said: ”I respect Dr. Shirley and his family and wish them well. … In this case, I didn’t know that they were around. And I’ve made contact and spoken to the studio and everyone. At the end of the day, you wish everybody was happy in any situation. You don’t want anybody to be upset about anything or offended in any capacity. So, I wish [Shirley’s family] well and send them my love, and I hope they receive it.” Apparently, they have; they were ”glad” that he won the Globe.
Honest question: were you similarly outraged on behalf of Mark Zuckerberg with regards to his depiction in “The Social Network.” – a depiction Zuckerberg says “made up a bunch of stuff that I found kind of hurtful.” Were you up in arms with Citizen Kane’s depiction of William Randolph Hearst?
How about how Adam McKay didn’t consult with Dick Cheney for Vice 😉
Yes, but if Cheney’s family sees ”Vice” and disagrees with his depiction, they have every right to voice it. Mortensen’s dismissed the Shirley family’s grievances as ”unjustified.” And now Abdul-Jabbar is telling them their concerns ”don’t really matter.” At least Ali thought the family had some justification; hence, his apology.
Wouldn’t be the first time people bristled at being told they were missing the forest for the trees.
Oh and you don’t think McKAy and Bale’s reaction to Cheney’s complaints will be telling him it’s “unjustified” and they “don’t really matter”? Um, Bale just called Cheney Satan in an awards speech last week. You all assume Cheney is clearly an evil character and that doesn’t fit your argument, but it works both ways. If we have to get approval from the subjects of our art, I hate to tell you it won’t be art. It will be North Korea.
And I used the extreme example of Cheney to make my point, but what about a more divided subject such as Steve Jobs? It was rumored David Fincher and Christian Bale, as well as others, dropped out of the film before Danny Boyle and Michael Fassbender went ahead with it mainly because Jobs’ widow objected to the script, as it protrayed Jobs in an unflattering light and was a work of “complete fiction.” (Sound familiar). And yet, Jobs own daughter has since written her own memoir of growing up in the family and it too has many unsavory details that his widow is calling false as well, so who are you gonna side with? Whose approval do you need for your movie?
Wait, I don’t think anyone is saying they don’t have the right to voice any complaint. But does that complaint diminish the movie?
Honest answer: Does one ”outrage” have to be connected to every biopic in movie history? The topic, at hand, is ”Green Book.” … If you want a contrast, however, among THIS season’s Oscar contenders, there’s ”First Man.” Chazelle and Gosling met with Neil Armstrong’s widow for her blessing, and their sons were consultants on the movie. So when the whole sham controversy about ”flag-planting” came up, Mark and Rick Armstrong forcefully defended the movie.
My point is that every biopic is going to piss off someone in some way or another, because it’s a dramatization, not a documentary. “First Man” may have gotten the Armstrongs’ blessing but Buzz Aldrin tacitly condoned the “flag-planting” criticism against the film too.
I think the difference is that the son of the lead appears to have embellished his (white) father’s role to make him look better/more important than he actually was (the Shirleys deny they were ever “friends”), and this is deliberately at the expense of the (black) co-lead. Does it make it more dramatically convenient that Shirley is so alienated from his culture as the movie depicts? Does it provide a certain narrative “balance” that the white guy can teach the black fella a thing or two also? Sure, but at what cost? Are we really at the stage where we still need a white proxy to teach the audience lessons that Racism = Bad? The whole thing feels lazy and glib, notwithstanding Ali’s excellent performance. Getting some big themes across may not be nearly as important to the Shirleys than a certain fairness and fidelity to Don. GREEN BOOK is DRIVING MISS DAISY 2.0. DMD had DO THE RIGHT THING as a sharp contrast. GB has the films by Spike Lee, Barry Jenkins, Boots Riley, Carlos López Estrada, heck even Ryan Coogler, It’s so heavy-handed and artless, it feels like a TV movie with just a bigger budget–safe, cozy, and too quick to break its arm patting itself on the back.
Tv Movie? Seriously
This is a pretty common take of the film I’ve seen online, and it’s one that I find incredibly reductionist and don’t agree with, at all. And it’s certainly not a take that I’ve seen even remotely echoed by anyone I know in the real world who has seen the film.
Is it not strange to you that the pictures of the two guys they show are not pictures of them together?
I totally agree. The crazy thing about “First Man” is that you have people who were not there and didn’t know Armstrong rippnig on it for a portrayal that doesn’t fit the myth, instead of celebrating the beauty of a movie that dared to go much deeper and give us a portrait of a real person and his feelings. Anyone who thinks that going to the moon could be a more significant event in a man’s life than his child’s death and still admire that man is someone I really don’t want to know.
Green book was an awesome movie. One of my personal favorite movies of 2018.