I wasn't planning on watching it, but I went on a date with a beautiful lady (ie. Mom) and she picked it. (She's reading the book.) I was expecting to roll my eyes at yet another "white guilt saves the day" flick but I have to say, I really enjoyed it. Both Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer did a great job and it was awesome to see Cicely Tyson again.
Plus Emma Stone is little cutie pie. That ditzy blonde chick too. My Mom and I thought she looked a bit like Julia Roberts.
Sidenote: I never found Julia Roberts to be attractive until that scene in her photo studio in Closer. I can't pinpoint why but that scene made me pop a swooner and I've been all about ever since.
Meh. This is a movie based off a book that was meant to entertain more than it was meant to educate. That critic/blogger makes good points, but I'm willing to bet some of those scenarios depicted in the movie really did happen back then, regardless of whether or not they enforce negative stereotypes. Personally, I get offended when a movie leans too hard in one direction (meaning negative stereotyping) and I felt this movie was balanced enough to my liking.
Oh, you mean this was the only story/book with black women in it that could be made into a movie?
You liked it? Cool. But if I have an issue with a tired and limited pool of roles and characters for black (North) American women in 2011, then that is my reaction to the film and my answer to Batmon's initial question.
Meh. This is a movie based off a book that was meant to entertain more than it was meant to educate. That critic/blogger makes good points, but I'm willing to bet some of those scenarios depicted in the movie really did happen back then, regardless of whether or not they enforce negative stereotypes. Personally, I get offended when a movie leans too hard in one direction (meaning negative stereotyping) and I felt this movie was balanced enough to my liking.
Also, if this guy feels so strongly about it, then shit, call those Black actresses (Blacktresses?) out! It's cool to prop up their acting skills, but let Cicely 'n nem know you don't support the fact that they collected a paycheck for what you deem to be inaccurate and racist.
Meh. This is a movie based off a book that was meant to entertain more than it was meant to educate. That critic/blogger makes good points, but I'm willing to bet some of those scenarios depicted in the movie really did happen back then, regardless of whether or not they enforce negative stereotypes. Personally, I get offended when a movie leans too hard in one direction (meaning negative stereotyping) and I felt this movie was balanced enough to my liking.
Also, if this guy feels so strongly about it, then shit, call those Black actresses (Blacktresses?) out! It's cool to prop up their acting skills, but let Cicely 'n nem know you don't support the fact that they collected a paycheck for what you deem to be inaccurate and racist.
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.
Oh, you mean this was the only story/book with black women in it that could be made into a movie?
THIS
this movie may not be the worst of it's kind (kumbaya africa ones are the most disconnected) and i have not seen it but to me hollywood exacerbates the already compounded problem of minority roles (or lack thereof) by always making the movie about ''liberation'' that is sparked or channeled through a safe-familiar white hero. Even shows like that NBC call center one where we've never seen so many brown peeps in one scene let alone have recurring non-token roles it's all about the one white dude. You can say it's so audiences relate but to me it's about the focus group mentality where the audience (i.e white america) feels comfortable about a certain plot development (think edited romeo must die kiss)
This is not the color purple 2011 it's just more of the same.
Except that, to George's own point, that discussion will only go so far when no one has to actually face the harsh and unpalatable reality of history.
i believe when there is nothing really presenting the harsh reality (a film like the haiti doc krikrak comes to mind) it becomes romaticized and forgotten/remembered as not that bad...
Apartheid although very recent means almost nothing to the current generation and the following might not even know mandela...that rugby bullshit movie sure as hell won't be a clear historical perspective...talk about majorities getting shortchanged in the case of S.Africa
and let's not even go into history/anthropology white man perspective on an education/book level that is just depressing
The thing is, a movie can be about whites saving Blacks, or about The Magic Negro, or any of Hollywood's other methods of dealing with race, and still be a good movie.
And by good I mean good acting, good sets, and entertaining.
So I feel Herm, he went to the movie and was entertained and enjoyed it, found it engaging and a fair depiction of the time and place from the protagonist view point.
And I know where Bassie is coming from, no interest in seeing another Hollywood maid.
This looks genuinely awful--seems to have been almost universally panned (with the bizarre exception of David Denby, who usually hates on everything).
Admittedly, I don't really follow reviews, but a quick Google search reveals 62 generally favorable reviews on Metacritic. Is that considered "universally panned?" I'm asking seriously. To me that sounds like a good number.
This looks genuinely awful--seems to have been almost universally panned (with the bizarre exception of David Denby, who usually hates on everything).
Admittedly, I don't really follow reviews, but a quick Google search reveals 62 generally favorable reviews on Metacritic. Is that considered "universally panned?" I'm asking seriously. To me that sounds like a good number.
This looks genuinely awful--seems to have been almost universally panned (with the bizarre exception of David Denby, who usually hates on everything).
Admittedly, I don't really follow reviews, but a quick Google search reveals 62 generally favorable reviews on Metacritic. Is that considered "universally panned?" I'm asking seriously. To me that sounds like a good number.
personally i think this movie looks awful, but it does have 73% on rottentomatoes out of 125 reviews.
The thing is, a movie can be about whites saving Blacks, or about The Magic Negro, or any of Hollywood's other methods of dealing with race, and still be a good movie.
And by good I mean good acting, good sets, and entertaining.
It all depends on one's threshold. I can suspend my belief and be entertained by aliens, highly stylized horror scenes, giant robots, characters randomly breaking out into song and death-defying car chases. But I can't get beyond self-serving, history-whitewashing, tired as fuck melodramas to find my way to a good time. I'm boring that way!
She said something to the effect of, These maids are not the same maids you saw in other Hollywood movies.
More or less, these are real maids, those were fake maids. Or perhaps, these maids have dignity, those maids were stereotypes.
Anyway, the point is that npr said, people on soulstrut are talking about this movie, what do you think about what they are saying. I wish they would have Oliver Wang on as a commentator on these types of stories. I guess they feel that he only knows about rap.
I feel bad, cuz I didn't wanna rope Herm into defending liking this movie, but my cut is like this. This shit is the same old fucking shit enforcing the same tropes and stereotypes of the 1950s and earlier. This chick's book was rejected 60 times. I think 60 publishers had it right. This book has been written in a million different ways before, but those publishers apparently underestimated the public's desire for the same fucking pablum. Fuck Stockett, fuck this book, and fuck her modern day Harriet Beecher Stowe simplistic bullshit writing.
I feel bad, cuz I didn't wanna rope Herm into defending liking this movie, but my cut is like this. This shit is the same old fucking shit enforcing the same tropes and stereotypes of the 1950s and earlier. This chick's book was rejected 60 times. I think 60 publishers had it right. This book has been written in a million different ways before, but those publishers apparently underestimated the public's desire for the same fucking pablum. Fuck Stockett, fuck this book, and fuck her modern day Harriet Beecher Stowe simplistic bullshit writing.
Ha ha! Holmes, I'm one of those weird, stubborn, "independent thinker" types that likes what he likes despite any critic's or blogger's attempt to sway my decision. Once in a long while I'll allow myself to be goaded into defending my tastes, whether it be a potentially racist movie, a self-serving corporate vehicle or a foul ass glorifying and glamorizing rap song, but for the most part, I like what I like and that's that. I can't really worry what other individuals or the general public take away from a movie/song/painting/etc. I mean, shit, look at what the general public's made popular!
That said, if Ms. Tyson found it suitable to act in, then who am I to knock it?
Oh shit I love movies about maids! Cant wait to add this to the collection. Hope it's as good or better than maid in manhattan and the complete Gimme A Break box set with Special Nell Carter commentary.
Driving miss daisy is an entertaining film, but dont front on the insidious undertones.
Or admit that u havent developed an adequate filtering system when peepin this stuff.
"i liked it overall, but there was some bullshit up in that piece."
batmon
27,574 Posts
Comments
Plus Emma Stone is little cutie pie. That ditzy blonde chick too. My Mom and I thought she looked a bit like Julia Roberts.
Sidenote: I never found Julia Roberts to be attractive until that scene in her photo studio in Closer. I can't pinpoint why but that scene made me pop a swooner and I've been all about ever since.
b/w
;blap:
http://newblackman.blogspot.com/2011/08/association-of-black-women-historians.html
Meh. This is a movie based off a book that was meant to entertain more than it was meant to educate. That critic/blogger makes good points, but I'm willing to bet some of those scenarios depicted in the movie really did happen back then, regardless of whether or not they enforce negative stereotypes. Personally, I get offended when a movie leans too hard in one direction (meaning negative stereotyping) and I felt this movie was balanced enough to my liking.
This is a period movie set in the south. Would you rather they be Korean maids? Or better yet, caucasian male maids??
Bamboozled
You liked it? Cool. But if I have an issue with a tired and limited pool of roles and characters for black (North) American women in 2011, then that is my reaction to the film and my answer to Batmon's initial question.
Also, if this guy feels so strongly about it, then shit, call those Black actresses (Blacktresses?) out! It's cool to prop up their acting skills, but let Cicely 'n nem know you don't support the fact that they collected a paycheck for what you deem to be inaccurate and racist.
THIS
this movie may not be the worst of it's kind (kumbaya africa ones are the most disconnected) and i have not seen it but to me hollywood exacerbates the already compounded problem of minority roles (or lack thereof) by always making the movie about ''liberation'' that is sparked or channeled through a safe-familiar white hero. Even shows like that NBC call center one where we've never seen so many brown peeps in one scene let alone have recurring non-token roles it's all about the one white dude. You can say it's so audiences relate but to me it's about the focus group mentality where the audience (i.e white america) feels comfortable about a certain plot development (think edited romeo must die kiss)
This is not the color purple 2011 it's just more of the same.
Except that, to George's own point, that discussion will only go so far when no one has to actually face the harsh and unpalatable reality of history.
i believe when there is nothing really presenting the harsh reality (a film like the haiti doc krikrak comes to mind) it becomes romaticized and forgotten/remembered as not that bad...
Apartheid although very recent means almost nothing to the current generation and the following might not even know mandela...that rugby bullshit movie sure as hell won't be a clear historical perspective...talk about majorities getting shortchanged in the case of S.Africa
and let's not even go into history/anthropology white man perspective on an education/book level that is just depressing
http://www.thefeministwire.com/2011/08/12/kathryn-stockett-is-not-my-sister-and-i-am-not-her-help/
And by good I mean good acting, good sets, and entertaining.
So I feel Herm, he went to the movie and was entertained and enjoyed it, found it engaging and a fair depiction of the time and place from the protagonist view point.
And I know where Bassie is coming from, no interest in seeing another Hollywood maid.
Myself I am in no hurry to see it.
Admittedly, I don't really follow reviews, but a quick Google search reveals 62 generally favorable reviews on Metacritic. Is that considered "universally panned?" I'm asking seriously. To me that sounds like a good number.
THIS X1000
I think he meant by the NYC intelligentsia.
personally i think this movie looks awful, but it does have 73% on rottentomatoes out of 125 reviews.
It all depends on one's threshold. I can suspend my belief and be entertained by aliens, highly stylized horror scenes, giant robots, characters randomly breaking out into song and death-defying car chases. But I can't get beyond self-serving, history-whitewashing, tired as fuck melodramas to find my way to a good time. I'm boring that way!
She said something to the effect of, These maids are not the same maids you saw in other Hollywood movies.
More or less, these are real maids, those were fake maids. Or perhaps, these maids have dignity, those maids were stereotypes.
Anyway, the point is that npr said, people on soulstrut are talking about this movie, what do you think about what they are saying. I wish they would have Oliver Wang on as a commentator on these types of stories. I guess they feel that he only knows about rap.
PS: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/lawsuit-black-maid-ablene-cooper-sues-author-kathryn/story?id=12968562
Ha ha! Holmes, I'm one of those weird, stubborn, "independent thinker" types that likes what he likes despite any critic's or blogger's attempt to sway my decision. Once in a long while I'll allow myself to be goaded into defending my tastes, whether it be a potentially racist movie, a self-serving corporate vehicle or a foul ass glorifying and glamorizing rap song, but for the most part, I like what I like and that's that. I can't really worry what other individuals or the general public take away from a movie/song/painting/etc. I mean, shit, look at what the general public's made popular!
That said, if Ms. Tyson found it suitable to act in, then who am I to knock it?
Racist.
Or admit that u havent developed an adequate filtering system when peepin this stuff.
"i liked it overall, but there was some bullshit up in that piece."