-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
‘I feel betrayed’ by Green Book, says man who played in Don Shirley’s ensemble
- Thread starter UnpopularBlargh
- Start date
It sounds like the movie created a pretty far afield depiction of Don Shirley. If they used different names (ie not Don Shirley nor Tony Vallelonga/Lip) in the movie would it have avoided the controversy?
I get that it would have all but destroyed its chances at an oscar and severely decreased the amount of people that would have watched it (you need that "based on" hook for both targets).
More of an intellectual exercise.
It does seem like this was the one shot to make a movie based on the life of Don Shirley and they kind of squandered it. But then again, maybe this controversy can spark the making of a more faithful depiction, and this time from the point of view of Dr Shirley himself.
If so, who would you trust to breathe life into such a project? (I'll throw my hat in the ring to write it)
I get that it would have all but destroyed its chances at an oscar and severely decreased the amount of people that would have watched it (you need that "based on" hook for both targets).
More of an intellectual exercise.
It does seem like this was the one shot to make a movie based on the life of Don Shirley and they kind of squandered it. But then again, maybe this controversy can spark the making of a more faithful depiction, and this time from the point of view of Dr Shirley himself.
If so, who would you trust to breathe life into such a project? (I'll throw my hat in the ring to write it)
Like, this movie literally had a scene of him trying fried motherfucking Chicken for the first time.
Nigga WHAT?
Nigga WHAT?
"I saw those muslims cheering the Towers falling too @realDonaldTrump"
- Academy Award winner for movie starring a Muslim actor
- Academy Award winner for movie starring a Muslim actor
That's how it should be seen, yes. Unfortunately, that term is used for a reason, because it makes it sound as if it's mostly correct and only a few minor details here and there that are changed. When in reality, it basically just means "yeah, there is indeed a true story, which we easily could have told... but we chose to completely discard that, ignore it and make a bunch of stuff up instead." And people should assume it's the latter, but because of the just world fallacy and all that when people here those words they'll naturally be inclined to give benefit of the doubt and assume it's mostly true because why else would good people be using that term in the first place if it's mostly made-up nonsense, so it must be true, etc. And they know that's how people will react when they see those words, which is why they do it, to mislead and give it more credence and weight than it deserves and why I really wish that Hollywood couldn't get away with stuff like that and it could just be called misleading advertising since that's literally the intent, to mislead, and not get off on technicalities because it is true that it is based on a true story even if the purpose of that stuff is 100% to be misleading as to just how much of it is true, but alas.
Basically, I suppose my own point is it's not reasonable to blame the audience or put the burden on them, when the intent of taglines like "based on a true story" is obvious. They shouldn't be able to lie through their teeth like that to begin with and the expectation shouldn't be on audiences to cut through their nonsense since that gives people like this absolutely no reason to stop doing it, when they're rewarded so massively for that and the whole thing just doesn't work at all. It just doesn't, on any level. I'm not going to blame people, that is, audiences, for assuming the best of people, and defaulting to the just-world-hypothesis and assuming people aren't really, really stretchin' the truth when they say "based on a true story" when I can just blame the people lyin' and abusing that good will to begin with.
Of course, should people do more research than they do nonetheless? Absolutely, that would be wonderful. But that's not a reasonable expectation, and people such as the key individuals behind this film know it and capitalize on it to sell their snake-oil instead and those are the ones who deserve the brunt of the blame and who should be focused on above all else, not the ones who bought the snake-oil. Doing otherwise just doesn't make any sense and will result in nothing else than this just continuing to happen because their's no real way to hold people accountable for being deceived by intentionally deceptive material. Blaming the people who made that deceptive material in the first place and saying that, at the very least, even if they don't deserve particular consequences for that, they certainly don't deserve to be literally awarded for it and celebrated for it on top of it all (especially when naturally, to any reasonable viewer, that would only give such a film more weight and less likely to assume it's all a pile of lies, because who would reward a film like that and let them get away with it)? That's somethin' entirely different.
I suppose just for me I don't like the cynical, defeatist stance of "this ain't going to change, so consumers need to be on guard and on the lookout for it and just stop trusting anything" when even if that's true, I can just as easily take the stance of "no, wait, fuck that, instead of putting the onus on people for being too trusting and having their trust broken and to stop doing that, maybe it should be on the people abusing that trust in the first place and that's where the focus should be and we should do more about that, so we actually can slowly progress to a society where we can trust each other instead of just defaulting to that never being the case and giving up."
And that's why I can't really abide by this whole "people just need to do their research more" stuff. Because yeah, that may be true, more people should do their research and not take Hollywood as gospel absolutely! But that shouldn't exactly be the takeaway lesson of this, at least not so much as it should be people shouldn't lie and make this up and maybe there should be some form of consequence when they do, or at least they shouldn't be lavishly rewarded for their lies, and maybe we should work more towards making that the case should be the lesson, or at least that's how I feel.
And I know, I know, you already said you aren't justifying it. I hear that, and did read that, and understand that. But if you truly feel that way, then why focus on audience reactions/expectations to begin with? That's my point in the end, there's no point in doing that, and focusing on the audience or blaming them (even if they too should do their research more), whereas blaming the people who make mad $$$ of it and then are awarded for it? That seems different, and where the focus should be, and just focusing on the audience, whether you're justifying this stuff or not, just doesn't seem to have much purpose in the end to me, if that makes sense.
I don't care if the movie is an accurate telling of a real story.
The film tells a story that is important and changes need to be made to reality in order to focus on the takeaway the writers / director / producers want to communicate to their audience.
I finally watched this film this week after reading all the controversy, and just didn't get it [the controversy, that is].
Great film, amazing message, well made in every aspect I care about.
note - I hope I'm not being problematic or dismissive of any concerns minorities / people of colour / black people might have with the film, so apologies in advance if I'm being an ignorant whitey right now.
The film tells a story that is important and changes need to be made to reality in order to focus on the takeaway the writers / director / producers want to communicate to their audience.
I finally watched this film this week after reading all the controversy, and just didn't get it [the controversy, that is].
Great film, amazing message, well made in every aspect I care about.
note - I hope I'm not being problematic or dismissive of any concerns minorities / people of colour / black people might have with the film, so apologies in advance if I'm being an ignorant whitey right now.
The problem isnt that it takes liberties, its that it takes liberties to make the black guy seem stupider than he is, makes Tony smarter and less racist than he was and tries to present racism as a problem with a simple solution to fix it all while the people who made the movie never contacted the family of the black man while being extremely racist and then they get applauded by other white people for making a great movie about race.
It'd be amazing if they got Ali to reprise his role, but make him act totally different and more like the real Shirley.
SO you dont care about actual facts and how upset the people friends and family are about his portrayal in his bullshit movie.
It takes the story of an accomplished black person, and makes it valid ONLY through the lens of a white person.
This isn't new. White people have been taking things from African Americans for centuries. Their freedom, their culture, their stories.
Black people are treated as peripheral in their own narratives. Ali was nominated for supporting actor. Viggo for best actor. In a movie about a BLACK PERSON'S LIFE. When the award for best movie was received, the stage was full of white people with Ali literally so much to the side that some pictures don't even show him in the stage at all.
More than that, they didn't even acknowledge Don Shirley when receiving the goddamn award. HIS STORY. And they decided to harp on about Viggo and Carrie Fisher before giving this man his due.
People, please stop supporting this racist nonsense. It's not hard.
Last edited:
That's fair, I hear you.
I don't really understand the hostility, but I can appreciate we assume people aren't willing to open their minds to responses and have their positions changed.
I get what you're saying and think it has value, which gives me a lot to reconsider.
Cool, very helpful, thanks!
I suppose it was hard for me to reconcile the complaints when I really enjoyed Shirley's story in this film [the rain scene where he lamented not being black enough, or white enough, or man enough literally made me ugly cry out of nowhere].
But I really do understand the problematic nature of retelling a black story through a white lens and making the white character the focus when he really shouldn't be - that's not cool.
I suppose my critical thinking was turned off a bit while watching as the hollywood heartwarm effect worked on me too well with this film :/
#charlesfail
I enjoyed this movie in a Remember The Titans kind of feel good comedy / drama way that tries to tackle difficult themes. I knew nothing about the real story or history behind the people involved. Really sucks that they seem to have turned a real thing with real people into a Disney style cookie cutter Hollywood film. I didn't think it was best picture worthy either, that just seems like Hollywood patting itself on the back for how woke they are inside of their bubble.
I'm sorry if it came off as hostile towards you. That wasn't what I was going for :0
While I was replying to you, I wasn't directing my commentary at you with the intent of attacking you, but more generally talking about the issue.
It was absolutely heartwarming and hilarious to me. It's the only BP nominee I'll be getting on bluray despite watching them all because the humor and the Christmas movie thing make it more rewatchable for me.
Hell Bohemian Rhapsody completely changed the timeline but it made for a way better final scene as a result.
I don't see how people take this portrayal of Shirley as an insult when he's consistently schooling Tony in writing, speaking, art, and got them out of prison with his superior connections then schooled Tony on why he didn't want to do that. Also the whole controversy with the family is a bit muddled because the son says Shirley himself said not to contact the family because they weren't there so I don't know which one can be more verified considering the man they're both claiming to hear this stuff from is dead.
Doesn't Tony even say how Shirley does things he could never do? Shirley is clearly presented as the far more special and exemplary human being. At least that's how I interpreted what the film presented.
I liked how it addressed racism without putting anyone down or just trying to make people feel guilty. But it also wasn't afraid to show the cops, venue owners, and other workers being abhorrently racist and how Shirley had to consistently take the high road.
Lol. That'd truly amazing. Would that be unheard of? Has that ever happened before?
It wasn't insulting it was just lambasted by all of Shirley's relatives and friends and written by Tony's racist shithead son.
/s
Shirley was with the racist guy for like a few days.
Them traveling the South for weeks is nowhere close to accurate
Yeah, I didn't know anything about real life Shirley watching this movie, but nobody is so uptight and out of touch they don't know how to eat fucking chicken.
On top of all the racial issues, there was this undercurrent of and anti-elitism.
They literally put him in an Ivory tower (with Tony "subtly" pointing out those elephant tusks).
He is so disconnected from real life he needs Tony to connect to people. They both learn from each other, yada yada.
I personally didn't buy it. For a lame dude like Tony to be able to teach anything to a guy like Shirley, they needed to make him uptight beyond belief.
Last edited:
Exactly this. These aren't documentaries. Stuff ALWAYS gets changed and yet people seem to never know it and freak out. It's ok if they changed things. It's supposed to be entertainment, not a history lesson. Just like it's ok to add women and minorities into video games set In Historical periods.
And we shouldn't criticize it for hackishly making a mockery of America's racial politics because that's just the way Hollywood does things? That just seems to me like it's more important to highlight how commercial art distorts the history of oppressed groups.
One is called inclusion and knowing women and minorities have existed throughout history.
The other is racism. Why are you conflating the two?
Thank you for this very well thought out reply. i appreciate the effort you put into this.
I would disagree that it is "intentionally deceptive material" and that was kind of my point. I feel like they are specifically telling the audience that they fluffed and puffed up this story to sell more tickets when they announce its "based" on a true story. If people did not share the same cynicism as i do, my post was designed to share that fact, not blame. I also don't blame the production company. Sell your fiction stories, just make sure you let us know its fiction, like i feel they did.
I live my life with a "buyer beware" attitude, and take little at face value, but could see how others come from a different point of view.
OP
OP
Honestly someone should remake it but replace Viggo's character with that of Armin who was both a driver and part of Shirley's music ensemble.
Well yeah one guy is definitely a bigger figure and more accomplished but that's the whole point. Anyone no matter how big can learn from a different point of view. There's nothing wrong with making Shirley have a flaw so they both have an arc
Wouldn't that character be saying how much they loved black panther?
I can't believe some people are trying to defend this movie. Duh, it doesn't have to be 100% accurate. But that's not what we are complaining about. It'd be like making a movie about a woman who was sexually assaulted, and making it about a sexist man trying to stand up for her, teaching her how to be a woman, and his journey.
That's the beef. They could've done a fictional version that still focused on Shirley's journey without dumbing him down and propping up his white driver.
That's the beef. They could've done a fictional version that still focused on Shirley's journey without dumbing him down and propping up his white driver.
But the arcs are so banal. Shirley had already decided to go to KKK-land, he didn't need an additional racist with him on the trip. A film from Shirley's point of view would be much more interesting.
I haven't seen Greenbook yet. My comments were about all movies that are 'based on a true story' invariably people always are upset that they aren't historically accurate.
What is racist about Greenbook?
The only way to insert crowd-pleasing white characters into fundamentally black narratives is to write the black characters as if the white folks actually have something to teach them about their own history and lives.
Green Book is a period biopic commenting on very serious and very complicated issues through the lived experience of two real people. Inventing flaws for Shirley so there is a counterbalance to Tony's overt racism, as if both people in that relationship had equal duty as moral human beings to learn to be better people from the other, would be hackish apologetics even if this was a fictional story set in that time period. That it does so under the guise of real people, but distorts the racially oppressed person such that he needs the relationship of a bigot to be fully actualized in the mind of the writer, is kind of disgusting.
I am wondering if any of this is relevant to the film? Not that I think the choices they made are fine or better, I just think a film shouldn't tie itself to facts. (But it also shouldn't sell itself as a true story). The film can be criticized for other reasons.
Nope if you going to base your movie on someone you better have all the facts.
OP
OP
No. Don't you remember how Lincoln the film became so much better when Spielberg decided to turn Lincoln into a confedarate? You could feel the drama! /s
Seriously though no one's saying a biopic has to be truthful 100% but it should get the major beats of the story right which from all these people who knew Shirley coming out shows Green Book doesn't at all.
To be fair I don't think the writer got Shirley's permission for his life story.
You're wondering whether the rewriting of a black person to be on a more even keel with the white racist (a decision made by an irl Trump supporter who hates Muslims) is relevant to the reaction towards a biopic about a black person during the Jim Crow era in a era where black narratives and stories are becoming more prominent and viable?
Really?
Following the Oscar discussions around this movie feels kind of weird. This felt really mediocre the whole way through, especially when it comes to portraying racism which is what a lot of people praise the movie for.
Lips arc felt unearned. There is the scene with the water glasses in the beginning that portray a deep rooted racism and after that he's only shown for low key 'endearing' racism without changing that much. It's like there are two states of his racism that are shown, where one is blatant and one is low key, but there is no arc that leads from one to the other.
When he corrects his family when they use a racist term and they just change on the spot it feels really unearned.
It feels like racism portrayed through the lense of white people - it lacks any subtlety for anything besides the obvious big racist moments.
Lips arc felt unearned. There is the scene with the water glasses in the beginning that portray a deep rooted racism and after that he's only shown for low key 'endearing' racism without changing that much. It's like there are two states of his racism that are shown, where one is blatant and one is low key, but there is no arc that leads from one to the other.
When he corrects his family when they use a racist term and they just change on the spot it feels really unearned.
It feels like racism portrayed through the lense of white people - it lacks any subtlety for anything besides the obvious big racist moments.
I remember I only read about Green Book in October or so for the first time but thought it sounded interesting but read a few possible problematic things about it then so I said I'd wait and see how things went but the more I heard about it the worse things sounded so I'm glad I didn't bother with it.
He would say that too. LMAO.
Keep politics out of my films.