Why Green Book's win made me cringe. (It's not what you think.)
Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 12:13PM By Lynn Lee
I heaved a heavy sigh the moment Green Book won best picture. But not for the reasons many of the rest of you probably did.
No, my heart sank because, dear readers, I like Green Book. Liked it when I saw it, still like it now after all the controversies that failed to derail its path to Oscar. Liked it enough to cringe at the thought of how exponentially the animus it’s already generated would grow following its victory, and how quickly it would be added to lists of the Academy’s Worst Decisions Ever...
Do I think it deserved best picture?
No; I was rooting for Roma, and BlacKkKlansman would have been my second choice. And yes, the revelations about Green Book are troubling, especially the apparent lack of consultation of Don Shirley’s family. While just how close he and Tony “Lip” Vallelonga actually were hasn’t been conclusively settled, there’s at least some indication that Dr. Shirley was nowhere near as isolated from his family and the African American community as the movie suggests. I have wondered if the writers were trying to avoid “magical negro” territory by amplifying a need or weakness for his character (loneliness, the feeling of feeling divided between two worlds) that Tony could fulfill, to balance out how much Don gives and teaches Tony.
This gets to the heart of Green Book’s appeal, which is also what irks its critics. The movie presents an idealized – some would say facile or even false – narrative of equality, one in which racism can be overcome and cultural differences bridged by individuals getting to know and empathize with one another. It’s moral comfort food that arguably shortchanges the sheer magnitude and history of inequality between blacks and whites and absolves the white man of his racism once he sees the error of his ways – notwithstanding the messier, darker reality that those sins can’t be so easily excised.
But that view, to my mind, puts too much weight on a film that feels essentially modest in its scope. Unlike Crash, with which it will now forever be dogged with comparisons, Green Book doesn’t feel like a prescription for curing racism (even if Peter Farrelly seems to think it is). For me, it works as a warm, funny, predictable but still poignant and unexpectedly charming odd-couple road trip movie that’s elevated by the natural chemistry between Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali and the incredible real-life accomplishments of Ali’s character. Was this the best movie that could have been made about Don Shirley? Almost certainly not. Was it the best movie about his friendship with his driver that could have been conceived by the driver’s son? I think so, and the fact that it turned out to be as enjoyable and, yes, even-handed as it did was a pleasant surprise.
Spike (BlacKkKlansman) and Mahershala (Green Book) with their Oscars
So no, Green Book is no Crash redux. Driving Miss Daisy is a more apt analog, and an unfortunate one, especially in a year that would (again) have been more deservingly Spike Lee’s. Once again, the Academy’s preference was for the feel-good movie about people connecting against all odds, rather than the movie(s) that showed just how damn stacked those odds are. In my heart, I can't hate their choice. But I do blame them for saddling Green Book with a legacy that it’s not quite robust enough to bear.
Reader Comments (50)
Excellent article, sums up my feelings exactly. Just like Green Book, I don't dislike Driving Miss Daisy either. They're both quintessential feel-good movies featuring excellent lead performances. Ali would have made a worthy Best Actor winner (not as much as Cooper but much more than Malek). A couple of tech noms maybe (the production design is top notch). But it's definitely not what I consider Best Picture material. Of the 7 BP nominations it's 5th, miles above BR and Vice but not in the same league as the other 4. History will deem this a bottom-tier BP selection, and the Academy should be ashamed that they let four other far superior films go by.
Sorry 8 - I forgot Black Panther.
Liked the film,Ali was okay but 2 wins in 2 years is a bit much,makes it hard to win again if he's better next time out,Mortensen is simply bad in the film.
"Was it the best movie about his friendship with his driver that could have been conceived by the driver’s son?"
If you have to qualify something that much, I think you might have lost your argument.
I haven't seen Green Book... but controversy aside, I can't imagine this is more than a "solid" movie, as opposed to a BEST PICTURE winner.
It doesn't take long for movies to go from "breakout sensation" to "cinema non grata" these days, once people start writing thinkpieces.
In the future, everyone: Pay attention to the reception critics and audiences give films at the festivals. I'm not saying those takes are gospel. But they do reflect how people respond to movies before the internet narratives go wild.
I'm not saying Green Book makes a great Best Picture winner. I'm just saying there's a lot hyperbole in the Green Book takes, including from people who haven't even seen it (but take their fave Twitter follow, podcaster, blogger, etc.'s word for it).
100% agreed....
Driving Miss Daisy and Green Book are similar to me, for among the obvious reasons, they have dubious screenplays but are somewhat rescued by their sensational leading performances. I think it is typical for my luck this year that the only award I would have given it would have been for Viggo Mortensen - one of the two it didn't win. The screenplay especially is the worst thing about it.
"never underestimate the power of mediocrity" - Paul Schrader
Lady Who Formerly Lunched: Well, I'm not really making an argument. I just think that given how one-sided the sourcing for the movie was, it's a surprisingly good movie that does a pretty good job developing Ali's character. The problem arises when you get into the issue of whose story it is to tell and whether, with Don Shirley not wanting to participate and his family (for whatever reason) not getting that choice, the movie should have been made at all. Given that Dr. Shirley comes across as a very positive and well developed character and that I always assume that movies "based on a true story" will often take liberties with the facts, I'm less inclined to be outraged about it...but at the very least, the optics are bad.
Tiffy: I largely agree, except that the initial reactions didn't reflect the later revelations from Dr. Shirley's family. That said, yes, the later pile-on did feel like it was driven by people who either hadn't seen the movie or if they did see it, went into it already knowing what they thought of it.
I think that Green Book was a middle choice, and the middle choice usually wins best Picture. This year we had movies above the heavens as Roma, The Favourite and Blackkklansman.
The Shape of Water won but two pieces of art like Call Me By your name and Phantom Thread was nominated.
Spotlight won but Revenant and Mad Max were in the mix.
And it is not fault of the preferential ballot. Remember: Rocky, Ordinary People, Kramer vs Kramer. The masterpiece wins only few times. Last time for my taste was with No Country for Old Men. After that, a lot of movies that I really love won (Birdman... and I think nobody else) but I wouldn't call them Masterpieces.
I would not have voted for Viggo over Bradley, but I do think his performance was the best thing about the movie. It's definitely the thing I'll most remember about it. Ali was just bland. It did seem kind of odd to see Viggo Oscar-less when the screenplay, Ali, and film all went home with awards.
@ Suzanne - Viggo will won one day. He just needs a biopic of someone more famous. Bwahahah
I think we're too deferential to estates/families when it comes to telling stories about real people. To the extent that a public figure is researchable, moviemakers should be free to do what they want in my opinion—even when it veers into the ahistorical, speculative, what have you
The Hours, for instance, completely fabricates events and conversations leading up to Virginia Woolf's suicide. I don't have anything against Michael Cunningham for imagining them.
I'm sure the Cheneys aren't thrilled with Vice but it'd be a mistake to defer to them. As we speak the Jacksons are out there PR-ing the HBO documentary about Michael. On a less villainous note: I hope Liza Minnelli's displeasure with the Judy Garland movie doesn't harm the project. It shouldn't!
If there's a legitimate intellectual property issue then take it to court.
I've heard some chatter about how the voting system allows for middling movies to win, and daring/interesting fare to never land the trophy, and I suppose that's true... if you please everyone, you're more likely to win.
Interesting article.
Never understood this idea that racism is ever overcome in this movie, or by being accepting (even tho true acceptance is actually the answer).
Two people overcome their own issues, their own hang-ups, their own fears and even prejudices.
Think of the glasses thrown out. I always felt he let the others dictate certain choices. But by the end, those very people get those glasses planted right there for dinner (not literally the glasses).
I never thought that the next day we were all using the same bathroom.
Dr. Shirley is a little bit of a snob, and Tony is obviously not quite that. There's a lot that Tony is down with that Dr. Shirley is not so familiar with, but how is that (for those who think so) anything other than what they are. In Do The Right Thing Pino loves Prince and Magic, but he's a racist. In this film, Tony is -like a lot of racists, a lot of good people, and a lot of people who have slight and maybe unconscious prejudices- aware of the popular culture around him and of his generation.
Dr. Shirley is beyond a prep school kid, and he's a unique brand of artist. But at the end of the film, all the Little Richard and all of the fried chicken doesn't grant Tony the disenfranchisement of Dr. Shirley, who doesn't fit in anywhere. And it comes to a head (tho I remember Nathaniel didn't like Ali in the scene), preceded by a reaction by Tony that suggests some underlying resistence to being too down with the black experience.
And Driving Miss Daisy is a great movie. It's, in fact, not the soft film people think it is. But these are all being branded for all the wrong reasons.
One guy at a theater I go to (he works there) put up his snippet for Green Book. Didn't really like it, as he thought it was slight. But he thought it was at times hilarious, and that Ali and particularly Mortenson was great. I can handle that. I can't handle people criticizing the film for being something it's not.
About the truth, I think it's likely that Dr. Shirley wasn't close to his family and was close to Tony Lip. But regardless of how I feel about whether or not people should be true to a story, this film is what it is. People are pointing fingers for all the wrong reasons.
It wasn't my first choice of the nominees but, I too, didn't want it to win because of the blank-minded criticism it's gotten, including from people who acknowledge not having seen it.
The Academy is still mostly white, mostly male, and mostly older. GREEN BOOK was their movie, and Tony Lip was their guy. No African Kings, or African American cops, or indigenous maids, or lesbian queens, or empowered female pop singers or HIV positive queer rockers were going to give that demographic more of what they wanted than GREEN BOOK, an entertaining movie with a digestible social message, good acting and well-paced laughs. I didn't hate GREEN BOOK, even though I was rolling my eyes through half of its predictable beats. What really seems ridiculous is the idea that it's the "best" movie of 2018. Paul Schrader is right: middlebrow and mediocre.
I think this movie is unfairly maligned. Would it be a different movie if it was made by the Shirley family? Sure. But it was a story told from the POV of the driver’s son and focused on their friendship, which was real. To call it racist is extreme since they were friends.
Annoyed by the outrage of Green Book's popularity during award season. Glenn Close's public humiliation is being silenced by the celebratory response to the adorable and genuine Olivia Colman. Fuck the 2018 award season. All I wanted was that coronation for Close and feel completely numb at all the Black progress made at the ceremony.
Tom--we are not sure if the friendship was real. The Shirley family has said that the two men were not friends, just employer and employee.
I think it's unfortunate to publish this article in the midst of everything. Instead of giving the space to a writer expanding on why so many of us are disappointed and even angered at Green Book's crowning, giving it to someone that almost seems to decry an unfortunate amount of backlash is coming to a movie they liked. Nothing against Nat, or even Lynn. I just find it's a bit dismissive. GB's legacy is a bad one, its Oscar glory makes it all the worse and while it'll certainly face even more backlash it had plenty already behind it for good reasons.
"But that view, to my mind, puts too much weight on a film that feels essentially modest in its scope. Unlike Crash, with which it will now forever be dogged with comparisons, Green Book doesn’t feel like a prescription for curing racism (even if Peter Farrelly seems to think it is). For me, it works as a warm, funny, predictable but still poignant and unexpectedly charming odd-couple road trip movie"
This is a totally valid point that I understand and respect, but it's not one I think we need to hear right now. Criticisms of GB aren't only founded on reading too much into something that isn't there, to allege that implies critics might just be too harsh on the movie. And they're not. I'm glad the movie works as a feel good piece of comfort food for the author, it doesn't for other people for reasons that are not attempting to place too much weight on a film that doesn't earn it. Many of the criticisms of Green Book are rooted in the content of the movie and how it constantly dehumanises and humiliates its black character. The comfort is delivered through the pain of another, for many of us it's not simply a fuzzy movie that is being pounded upon by the crowds. Following its Oscar success, Hollywood fully embracing this type of content, we don't really need to hear right now why the victim in the long run is Green Book and why people who enjoyed this feel good movie would've preferred for its legacy to be left untarnished in the long run. We need to discuss what it means that a movie with that rhetoric is perceived as feel good and so wholly appreciated by crowds.
Again, I say this respectfully to both Nat and Lynn more as something I hope is worth thinking about for the future. Understanding too that Nat often provides spaces for differing opinions, something I value and appreciate. I just don't think the immediate aftermath is the best time to talk about what the loss means for GB or the people who enjoyed it.
I really need to watch Crash again. At the time, I loved it. I have never understood the criticism, except that it beat Brokeback. I definitely didn't feel like it was a cure for racism, I thought it pointed out that we all struggle with this in ways both subtle and glaring.
AlexD-so in the aftermath, only one side can share their opinion about the film and no one is allowed to defend it because that would be insensitive? I'm not seeing your point. I haven't seen it yet, so I'm neutral, for now. But I think this offered a viewpoint I'm not seeing on film twitter, that is really helpful.
shawshank- Nope. But the movie has /just/ been elevated to the highest degree, clearly is has fans and supporters. To many people, the movie isn't a feel good fluff that it's been painted as and the stamp of approval the film just got only heightens the dangerous ideas many of us see peddled in it (which go beyond the behind the scenes drama). They're expressing their frustrations at the institutional approval it's received and what it means for the kind of rhetoric the movie adheres. Since the movie's ideas just got that applause I don't think the people who like it and are sad they might not be able to like as much are the ones that should be driving the discourse right now.
@ shawshank - I also loved Crash at the time (I was 13). I've seen it again two years ago and.... No, COMPLETELY no.
AlexD getting it wrong like only a default Green Book hater could.
Just cuz you like something dosen't mean it's the best. Just cuz you dislike it doesn't mean it isn't good enough.
Hey, keep whining. Sounds rather Trumpy.
It's quite difficult for me to accept Green Book as little more than a feel-good odd couple/road trip/buddy movie when it's set against the backdrop of the pre-civil-right-era south and features a racist Yankee as one of the protagonists. The fact that the filmmakers elected to tell this particular story pretty much demanded that they treated race and racism with much more nuance and complexity than are depicted in the film.
Aside from that, however, I'm generally tired of any and all movies like this which portray racism as some absurd oddity from a bygone era as manifested through people who just needed to get to know some coloreds to change their minds. Racism is here and now. It's systems and structures and institutions. It's both the folks yelling "build the wall" and the ones who just moved into the historically black neighborhood last month and already are trying to rid it of the guy who's been selling his art on the street corner for the last decade.
All of this to say that there's enough racism to deal with in the present to stop making films that make white people feel good about not being as racist as they used to be fifty-plus years ago. And there's a way to do it that's both intelligent and honest.
AlexD, appreciate your perspective. This post was really meant to open up the discussion for all viewpoints, and it's interesting that your impression seems to be that people who liked the movie are drowning out the people who feel like it's actually harmful. I wrote the piece in part because I felt just the opposite - at least in the media I read, the vast majority of reactions I've seen to Green Book's ascension is criticism along the lines that you make.
Of course, none of these think pieces matter nearly as much as what the Academy does, and in turn what the studios push and greenlight. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
Troy: I think the filmmakers elected to tell this story because it was a feel-good "true" story. And maybe it's just different perceptions again, but I don't see this movie as saying racism is over, we can all relax. I see it as just one story about an individual becoming less racist that doesn't pretend to have the answers to the very real structural problems of racism you note. Now maybe we don't "need" films like this, but for what it is, I don't find it offensive.
Funny to observe all these fallacies about the Academy Awards still exist.
The Oscars are not and have never been about awarding the BEST in anything. It's a mathematical formula, popularity being the most important element.
Funny to observe how much people care about a majority composed by older white male's opinions, especially when the matter is supposedly art (Ok, it's not art, it's the opposite: it's entertainment. Art challenges the status quo. Entertainment reinforces it.)
Funny to observe how emotional people get when their opinions differ from a majority composed by older white males. Isn't this a time when patriarchy should be challenged? Or are people just superficially fighting it but seep inside are too inherently used o it to want change?
Yes, Change is hard, especially when it applies to a society. But I still can't help but scratch my head when adults have such juvenile reactions to a trophy being handed out. I guess we're just obsessed with receiving praise?
Deb, this is a site designed for Oscar fans. This is why they care about what wins Best Picture.
Green Book is what you're saying it is. Not worthy. However:
We need to be forever grateful the Best Picture winner was neither Vice nor Bohemian Parody
that would've been, oh my, don't even want to go there in my imagination
@/3rtful. Alright already... we know you are dying a fatal disease b/c Close didn't win
You are a broken record about color and Close!!!!
The Oscars is about how Hollywood wants to represent itself. I saw "Green Book " and liked it- it's not a perfect movie - the gay reveal scene is specially bad and then the subject is never mentioned again. The movie is a feel good road comedy bromance and I bet you they are working on the Broadway musical adaptation right now.
Thank you @Troy H. Your post is everything! I am pretty sure most Green Book fans cannot/will not/choose not to see it. This is especially true when we had films Blindspotting that went deeper
We do not need to go "back in the day" to talk about racism.
Lynn: Thank you for your response. I agree with a lot of what Troy talks about and I think that's where the disagreement comes from and why so many of us don't see it as a feel-good movie. It's not that critics of GB don't want to perceive the true story or the lightness of it or that we don't get it's just the story of one single individual. We totally get that, and we still find it harmful. We don't think movies hold the solution to how racism is over (even Blackkklansman didn't) but that racism goes beyond that, and movies that continue to build upon the idea that racism is more about the individual and their prejudices take us a few step backs in the discussion. I also have a lot of issues in the *way* it does this but that's another topic.
I'm glad you didn't find it offensive, and I'm also not saying people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it. They should! That's what movies are about. I also don't want to be interpreted as saying people who like the movie shouldn't speak up. But merely that since its win is so recent, the discourse should really be about why institutions like the Oscars keep embracing these types of movies, why they're harmful and why so many of us have issues. Green Book's reputation is the least of what's at stake here.
This is a tough one for me because I loved Green Book. I totally realize it has to do with identity and how you take in the film. I was lost in both actor's characters, which is very unusual. I am happy for Mahershala Ali because of this film and True Detective. He has risen as fast as Streep did. It would be great to do a Dr. Shirley version.
/3rtful, take a (long break) from these parts then. It’ll do everybody a world of good. Close has at least 2 competitive noms left, Colman might snag some supporting, but her very likely lone Lead nom was successful. You are extremely concerned with the award being about past achievements and arbitrary standards, not about taking the individual performance compared to other individual performances of the same year. Why don’t you solely follow the honorary awards, it seems more in tune with you.
DRIVINGMISSDAISY4EVA
If I don’t see another truck stop beanie on the Oscars podium I’ll get by.
/3rtful’s suppressed truth -- hmmm. Close has two competitive noms left? WHA? She is 72 next month. Guess how many women have been nominated after that age and Close is supposed to get two more somehow? What's more only 4 women in the entire history of the world have ever landed more than 7 acting nominations.
They were Meryl Streep, Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, and Geraldine Page. You really think Glenn is going to end up #4 of all time in Oscar books? Nah.
The thing I find most problematic about the Green Book discourse in terms of the Con side is the insistence that Don Shirley's fame is the be-all end-all where Don Shirley's story is considered. Now, I'm not saying that Tony Vallelonga's son is either but since when are the families of queer people the most reliable sources of information on their private life? In my experience that's not the case. And I think statistically you will find endless histories about queer family having complicated relationships with their families. I applaud and envy anyone who has a super supportive totally honest relationship with their family as a queer person: you won the lottery and you should be very very grateful.
I think as society has become more accepting queer poeple are better integrated into society (and often, thus their birth family) but Shirley was a queer man in a very anti-queer time. You really think his family is the #1 source of his truth? I think not. This narrative is really bothering me.
P.S. I dont have strong feelings about Green Book either way but I do have very strong feelings about catering to estates when it comes time for stories about real people. That way lies shit like Bohemian Rhapsody where Queen gets to rewrite the history from a straight perspective because they were there and now they're somehow the #1 source for Freddie Mercury's life? NO, That aint it! And even if Don Shirley were alive to answer the truth of these things (or not) even he might not be a 100% reliable source. This is why biopics always need to be taken with huge grains of salt. To believe fully in any movie about a "true story" or to expect it to be utterly beholden to the truth is silly. Who is the last person you ever met in life who has never lied or never compartmentalized or never code switched depending on who they were with? Or who never rewrote certain parts of their life in their head to better cope with it or better fit it into their primary narrative?
I really dont understand this line of attack against this movie. (though some of the other ones make a lot of sense)
Has anybody listened to the real life Don and Tony tapes that were released on the internet recently? It's literally all there on tape straight from the horses' mouths as it were. The argument it's all a fiction fell apart when those tapes were released... or so I thought.
I completely agree RE: the untrustworthy family. I see it countlesss times as a genealogist. Families make up lies and stories and deny the truth to prevent 'shame'. But cold hard evidence is all that is important.
AlexD - I am sorry but you need to get a grip of yourself with that 'this is too soon and insensitive' post. This is the Oscars.
Luke and Nathaniel both with brains and a willingness to use it, rather than lash out because you know that a group of people here will agree with you and you get to feel good about being smarter than others
I haven't always agreed with Nathaniel, or even come close to, tho there has been plenty of overlap. But I've read his site since I was a teenager because overall he writes well and he does care about movies. If I ever met the guy it'd be fun to hash it out more (you'll interview me soon, I promise).
people just like to get offended at shit.
Driving Miss Daisy is actually a good movie. Unlike this piece of shit.
Anonny^^^
Tiffy and Nathaniel R: I certainly don't believe that movies are required either to stick to the absolute truth *or* to trust people or their families to be reliable purveyors of whatever the "absolute truth" is about them (if it even exists). But it does bother me when a movie that's supposed to be equally about two men is written only from the perspective of one of them. And let's be honest, it's worse when the one we don't hear anything from is black and the person who's representing him is white (although I wouldn't like the reverse, either).
But like I said, the end result, in this case, feels pretty balanced...if overly rosy.
Also, how come people who want to follow this narrative about the family and about the veracity of the story, don't go out and listen to these tapes? Sorry for that sentence btw.
Reminds of hearing about the stuff with The Hurricane, then A Beautiful Mind. Feel however you do about those films, but the approach to criticism is terrible.
My GF just sent me a skit from Seth Meyers called White Savior. Like a quarter of it was funny, but the over the top racist guy reminds me of the cop in If Beale Street Could Talk.
What an excellent post that sums up all my feelings exactly how I thought. I like that the Green Book is not a similar artwork as Driving Miss Daisy. They're both quintessential feel-excellent films featuring excellent acting performances. I provided several essays on the big short films for free use on https://eduzaurus.com/free-essay-samples/the-big-short/ and it reminded the similarity between the unusual directing style of movie production of Spike Lee and Adam McKay. I believe that Spike Lee deserved that oscar nomination for his artwork. I hope he will be productive as long as possible.