|
Post by GoldenFleece on Aug 17, 2011 6:45:06 GMT -4
But there were black writers and readers unhappy about The Help when it was just a book? And some were skeptical but won over after reading it, while others weren't. I first heard of The Help as a book with controversial racial politics that had been on the bestseller list for weeks, at that point. There was just less attention on the debate because movies trump books in pop culture generally.
|
|
|
Post by Neurochick on Aug 17, 2011 11:36:27 GMT -4
I didn't see Jumping the Broom though I heard it sucked. But at least that movie was told from the point of view of black people, with black people as the central characters. When a movie has a white protagonist it's always about the white people and the blacks are just there to help the protagonist get their "spiritual awakening" or some shit like that.
|
|
chiquita
Blueblood
Posts: 1,616
Nov 7, 2006 19:00:53 GMT -4
|
Post by chiquita on Aug 17, 2011 15:29:34 GMT -4
I didn't see Jumping the Broom though I heard it sucked. But at least that movie was told from the point of view of black people, with black people as the central characters. When a movie has a white protagonist it's always about the white people and the blacks are just there to help the protagonist get their "spiritual awakening" or some shit like that. But that doesn't describe The Help. Yes, there's a major white character, but after reading the book, if someone asked me who the main character is, I'd have said Abilene. She is the heart and soul of the story. I haven't had a chance to see the film yet, but from what I've read, the film focuses on Abilene's perspective. Part of the story (in the book) is Skeeter (the white girl) opening her eyes to the injustices around her that she'd always accepted as just the way of life without thinking about it. Most of the book is about "the help" and the shit they have to put up with on a daily basis if they want to keep their jobs and also just as black women living in Mississippi and the dangers inherent in that. The trailer sucks and doesn't represent at all what the book, and from what I understand of the movie, is about.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 16:31:06 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 16:34:13 GMT -4
I didn't see Jumping the Broom though I heard it sucked. But at least that movie was told from the point of view of black people, with black people as the central characters. It sucked mightily.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 16:31:06 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 17:21:59 GMT -4
Not only did Jumping the Broom suck mightily, it was an insult to both working class African Americans and upper middle class African Americans being portrayed in the film. Yes, it was told from the point of view of black people with black characters, but then again so are most of the horrible stereotypes in any Tyler Perry movie yet his movies make money.
As for The Help, I just saw it and I'm glad I saw it. First off, it stuck to the book. Secondly, those who are going after the story of the "enlightened white girl" trying to save the black domestics either didn't read the book, read the book without looking at the larger picture, or saw the movie without knowing the history of the situation. People cannot be ostriches and stick their heads in the sand. African American women were domestics in the North, South, Midwest, and West and had to know their place so to speak.
Which makes me wonder if an African American writer wrote The Help, how would people react?
|
|
baileydash
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 316
Dec 12, 2009 17:21:35 GMT -4
|
Post by baileydash on Aug 17, 2011 19:54:32 GMT -4
I'm annoyed not so much by the movie itself as by the fact that films like this get made only if they have a Skeeter-like character in them.
And it's also annoying to be told by SOME of the film's defenders to STFU and be grateful for ANY film about the civil rights movement, even when they are problematic.
Btw, I hate Tyler Perry movies. His films are so bad, I'd rather do without black films than sit through his cinematic crap.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 16:31:06 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 21:31:20 GMT -4
I'm annoyed not so much by the movie itself as by the fact that films like this get made only if they have a Skeeter-like character in them. And it's also annoying to be told by SOME of the film's defenders to STFU and be grateful for ANY film about the civil rights movement, even when they are problematic. First of all, the book was an international best seller. Hollywood would be crazy not to adapt it into a film. If the film makers changed the character to an African American girl who attended a predominately Black college, people of all colors who read the book would rebel. Secondly, whomever is saying people should be "grateful" that a civil rights movie has been made need to have their heads examined. Why throw gasoline on a fire? The problem isn't with the book per say, it's Hollywood. And movie studios are damned if they do and damned if they don't when it comes to any stories involving African American characters. Alfred Uhry wrote Driving Miss Daisy based on the stories he heard from his own life, but he was chastised for writing it and vowed never to write another story involving African American characters because he couldn't take the criticism. So instead of movies like The Help, films such as Precious should be made instead, am I correct? Precious, which had an African American writer, screenwriter, director, and producers, but was chastised by many AAs because of the stereotypes of urban life and the fact that the protagonist was an overweight black teen with a sadistic overweight mother. Yet, that movie won two Oscars. There is no answer to how to come to a middle ground in regards to portraying African American life past or present. I don't want to watch Tyler Perry films and others will knock Driving Miss Daisy, The Color Purple, Beloved, Precious, and The Help. Something's got to give.
|
|
Aurora B
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 162
Jul 31, 2006 21:33:56 GMT -4
|
Post by Aurora B on Aug 18, 2011 0:19:36 GMT -4
Saw this today and read the book recently. I think it stayed true enough to the book with two exceptions: the boyfriend's family backstory wasn't used, which kind of made him a one dimensional and unnecessary character, and the mystery/drama of why Constantine left Skeeter's family was changed. I could see both changes being made to shave off some movie time, but I think those original backstories made the book more compelling. Both of those characters, the boyfriend and the daughter, also brought layers to the choices some of the primary characters made and the results of the choices.
I picked up the book because of the movie trailer, which I suspected did not represent the actual (book) story. It was a little too humorously presented and if you see the movie it's obvious that the intention was to get butts in the seats based on the expectation of a sassy comedy. The humor is there, but it's used within the scope of the bigger story of these characters as they co-exist in their shared experiences.
I think it's a shame that this movie might be dismissed as sugarcoating or twisting the facts of the true experiences of people living in that time. It's fiction. I am the same age as the little girl, Mae Mobley, would be today, but I was born and raised in California and have absolutely no experience within the scenarios of the book/movie. I accepted that this story was being told against a turbulent time in the South and the rest of the US, but it does remain a fiction.
|
|
baileydash
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 316
Dec 12, 2009 17:21:35 GMT -4
|
Post by baileydash on Aug 18, 2011 8:14:50 GMT -4
Entertainment writer Gary Susman has posted a very sane piece about the controversy at Moviefone.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 16:31:06 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2011 10:11:58 GMT -4
A very sane piece indeed.
The final paragraph from Susman's piece sums it up for me:
|
|