I'm confused.
The film is awful? - it's not.
Racism still alive in Hollywood is awful? - I've never been so I wouldn't know what happens there.
Or you have not seen the film or missed the point of the film.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Film] What is your best Film of 2019 ?
- Thread starter Uncle Spielberg
- Start date
I'm confused.
The film is awful? - it's not.
Racism still alive in Hollywood is awful? - I've never been so I wouldn't know what happens there.
Or you have not seen the film or missed the point of the film.
That a previously completely racist man gets to know and tolerate one, highly accomplished, black man (who paid him a lot of money)?
Did they not become good friends, or did I dream that part of the film?
Probably not, but again, one black guy. We don't know how cured he is. Maybe he views this one black guy who he formed some kind of previously-based-on-payment relationship with as the exception. Maybe this one black guy's wealth and culture some how in Viggo's character's mind separates him from 'regular' black people. We don't know. The film doesn't show us how Viggo respond to other black people after their trip.
Are you saying they didn't become good friends?
I was typing out the below when you responded, so I'll edit this in. I'm saying the film doesn't really confirm it, the majority of the movie Vallelonga is in Dr Shirley's employment, when their journey comes to an end V invites him over for christmas dinner because, according to the film (though not Dr Shirley's family), Dr Shirley is alone. Then the film ends.
And if you listen to Dr Shirley's family regarding the true story, no, they didn't. They simply had an employer/employee relationship (as noted below).
Further reading:
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/20...e-controversy-racism-don-shirley-family-story
Controversy One: The movie's erasure of the Green Book itself.
In her review on Slashfilm, Candice Frederick pauses on the moment Vallelonga tosses the book in the back of the car as representative of the movie's problematic treatment of the Green Book: "A seminal item in Black history is trivialized and hijacked by a white man who has zero reverence for it, and because of that, the audience is given no reason to have any either."
Controversy Two: The Viggo Mortensen Problem
This one isn't really about the film, but Viggo saying the N-word during a discussion on race relations. (He apologised).
Controversy Three: Does Green Book even depict a true story?
The Shirley family also disputes the entire premise of the movie, which is that Shirley and Vallelonga were ever friends at all. “It was an employer-employee relationship,” Patricia Shirley, Don's sister-in-law, said during an interview with Shadow and Act. Maurice also clarified how Vallelonga and Shirley's relationship ended.
"He fired Tony," Maurice told Shadow and Act. “Which is consistent with the many firings he did with all of his chauffeurs over time…Tony would not open the door, he would not take any bags, he would take his [chauffeur’s] cap off when Donald got out of the car, and several times Donald would find him with the cap off, and confronted him. When you hear that Tony had been with him for 18 months, I can assure you, no chauffeur lasted with my brother for 18 months."
Controversy Four: Green Book doesn't tell Dr. Shirley's story.
In an article for IndieWire, Tambay Obensen argues that Green Book employs the "magical negro" trope in Shirley's relationship to Vallelonga. According to Obensen, Shirley "exists almost entirely to help transform his white companion on a quest toward salvation."
Controversy Five: Nick Vallelonga's resurfaced Anti-Muslim tweets.
Again, not really about the film itself, but the attitudes and behaviours of the people making it
Back in November 2015, Green Book scriptwriter (and Golden Globe winner) Nick Vallelonga expressed support for Donald Trump's debunked claim that he witnessed Muslim people cheering on 9/11. (he apologised,)
Many of the same points are made https://www.standard.co.uk/go/londo...2019-best-picture-controversial-a4075631.html, but it also brings up:
For all the off screen problems, the film itself is flawed too. As the Standard’s review reads: “[Green Book is] perhaps this is too uncomplicated a film for its subject. It telegraphs the feelgood finale at the start. It flips the black-white power balance in Driving Miss Daisy, but is equally content to settle for cosy reassurance.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...ism-made-white-people-white-people-ncna938886
I don’t think anyone who made “Green Book” consciously set out on a mission to make white people feel smug and self-congratulatory about race relations, but that’s the end result of watching it. There are plenty of people who are not hateful, racist or willfully ignorant who will enjoy “Green Book”; I am very sure that I know and love a whole lot of people who will enjoy “Green Book." (I’d wager that the white people who go see “Green Book” think of themselves as socially open-minded people who like seeing other white folks overcome their prejudices and become friends. Which is, in fact, good!)
But this movie was written, directed and produced by white people for white people, almost none of whom will have never found themselves at risk of a hate crime, much less a hate crime neatly solved by a tough white guy who, in one scene, eats an entire pizza folded up like a slice while relaxing in his undershirt and shorts.
It can sometimes be enough to just enjoy a movie and go on about your day, but if “Green Book” wants to be taken seriously as a film against racism — which it has positioned itself to be — it has to confront the lived reality of racism and the people it most directly affected (and still affects) in a deeply honest way. And when those people aren’t the ones who will leave “Green Book” feeling good, then it clearly hasn’t accomplished its objectives
Last edited:
I quite enjoyed Green Book but then I wasn't expecting it to eradicate racism any more than I was expecting Rambo to bring peace to Burma.
Reading up online about the film and the characters there seems to be two sides to the story, Don Shirley's family saying one thing and Tony's another.
Some say Tony and Don Shirley remained friends until they died.
colonies man
New member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 488
It is a film shot through with racism I’m afraid.Sadly nsc while being a splendid forum is populated by older white men who I expect have little experience with racism.
It’s also laughable to believe the film is a true story.
The film is based on a true story.
- Thread starter
- #52
How is it racist ? It shows racists but the whole meaning of the film is to show how wrong it was and to show a person who rejected his initial racists views and become a great friend to someone of the opposite colour
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Queen of Hearts. Fabulous performance, dark narrative.
Some people will get offended for the sake of getting offended.
RossyG
Well-known member
- Dec 20, 2014
- 2,630
...but never quietly. They want everyone to know about it.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Just seen Ad Astra which I had looked forward to and avoided reviews etc. Big disappointment. A lesson to any film maker not to think you can just take the best bits from other films and mash them together. I thought it had the potential for being another Interstella / Arrival but was anything but.
Oh, and US, I know you are a fan of Arrival, I hadn't even realised it was based on a short story by Ted Chiang until I started reading it, and thought hang on a minute, I've seen this...
note I bounce threads like this because I am pretty much a year behind...if I'm on top of things, 2 years if not!
We just watched The Joker for the first time. On Sky movies.
I didn’t know if I was in the mood for a dark storyline.
What an incredible movie and stunning performance from Joaquin Phoenix.
10/10
I didn’t know if I was in the mood for a dark storyline.
What an incredible movie and stunning performance from Joaquin Phoenix.
10/10