Green Book (Peter Farrelly, 2018)

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
User avatar
Fiery Angel
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: Green Book (Peter Farrelly, 2018)

#51 Post by Fiery Angel » Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:46 am

Out of 10 I hope

User avatar
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Green Book (Peter Farrelly, 2018)

#52 Post by tenia » Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:22 am

We loved Intouchables, we love Miss Daisy, I'm not surprised we can love this one. It has been probably the most covered movie this week in newspapers.

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Green Book (Peter Farrelly, 2018)

#53 Post by dda1996a » Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:47 am

Intouchables I can stomach, Miss Daisy is awful

User avatar
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: Green Book (Peter Farrelly, 2018)

#54 Post by bearcuborg » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:18 pm

I never saw Daisy, but it Can’t be worse than Life Itself, which is probably closer to Crash than Greenbook. I was forced to sit through it a few nights ago, I’m still not buying any audience ever reacted well to that dreck.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Greenbook

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

Re: Green Book (Peter Farrelly, 2018)

#55 Post by John Cope » Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:04 pm

Still can't comprehend the hate for Daisy, a lovely, well performed and preciously humane film. If Green Book is like that then good.

User avatar
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Green Book (Peter Farrelly, 2018)

#56 Post by DarkImbecile » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:01 pm

I can't decide yet whether this film is more or less frustrating because it actually is in many ways a well-constructed, fairly effective comedy-drama crowd-pleaser that happens to be in service of a facile, naive story seemingly designed to appeal to people who want to feel good about racism without feeling the inconvenient urge to do or change anything about themselves or their society.

Mahershala Ali is fine though not particularly award-worthy as Don Shirley (I'll get to Mortensen later), and Farrelly is experienced enough to make this all proceed smoothly. He even constructs a sequence or two with surprising charm, like Shirley's impromptu performance in a dive of a juke joint in Alabama, and the editing often hits just the right beats to make a joke deliver.

The script, on the other hand, panders so heavily to the inherent goodness and rightness of Mortensen's character — and therefore to the film's target audience — and glosses over anything that might be upsetting about the characters or society being depicted that any good work being done here is more or less lost; the script seems to be trying to serve as a healthy dollop of sugar to make the rest of the film go down easy, except they accidentally use ipecac syrup instead for the opposite result.

Even setting aside the question of accuracy in the film's representation of Shirley, the way it manipulates Shirley to allow him to serve as the flawed character who grows over the course of the film — while Tony just seems to magically overcome his noxious early display of racism and become the "magical Guido" who helps Shirley learn some things about what really matters in life — is so heavy-handed and misguided that the relative quality of the execution starts to seem like an affront itself. But this film is well-crafted, and sometimes funny, and sometimes something that might even approach being touching were I not in such a heightened state of skepticism due to its foundational problems — and for that I guess some of the participants deserve some credit.

That said, while I've been busy doling out vitriol to the script, let me finish with my disappointment with the lead performance. I think Mortensen takes the exact wrong approach to this character, where a different tack might have ameliorated some of the inherent problems in how it's written. Instead of using his performance to heighten the contrasts between the less palatable quirks presented alongside the fundamental goodness of the character as presented in the script, Mortensen leans so heavily on presenting us with a charmingly thuggish goofball with a heart of gold that the glimpses we get of incongruously vile behavior (like the infamous glasses scene early on) seem less like character shading than schizophrenia. Really making this performance a complicated one — which probably would have required pushing back on Farrelly's direction and the intent of the script, so I'm not entirely blaming Mortensen that this didn't happen — could have saved this movie from being as easily dismissable as it ultimately is.

User avatar
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: Green Book (Peter Farrelly, 2018)

#57 Post by Finch » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:58 am

If you had told me a year ago that there is a film coming out starring Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali that I'd think twice about going to see I'd have called you crazy and yet here we are. Social message films tend to make me want to run for the hills (mainly because they are usually more lecturing than compelling) and the trailer makes this look insufferably smug. Guess I'll sit this out and therefore refrain from commenting on whether it has any business being nominated.

User avatar
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Green Book (Peter Farrelly, 2018)

#58 Post by knives » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:43 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:32 pm
From Mark Harris in Vulture: Green Book Flopped. But Who Was It Supposed to Be For?
Mark Harris wrote:Green Book is a but also movie, a both sides movie, and in that, it extends a 50-year-plus tradition of movies that tell a story about American racism that has always been irresistibly appealing, on and offscreen, to that portion of white Americans who see themselves as mediators. They’re the reasonable, non-racist people poised halfway between unrepentant, ineducable racists on one side and, on the other, black people who, in this version of the American narrative, almost always have something to learn themselves.
What Green Book may not know is who it’s for. The portion of the white moviegoing audience that needs to be handled with this much care and flattery is getting smaller every year, and the nonwhite audience, at this point, seems justifiably wary of buying a version of someone else’s fantasy that it has been sold many, many times before; besides, it has other options. Underlying the bet that Green Book would be a crowd-pleaser is a long-outdated presupposition about the composition of the crowd — a belief that racism can only be explained to white audiences via a white character, and a concurrent belief that those white audiences are pivotal to the success of any movie. But they’re not. This weekend, two movies directed by black men, Creed II and Widows, made the top ten and handily outgrossed Green Book. While that’s not a common occurrence, it’s no longer a headline-worthy exception — and in a year that also includes Spike Lee’s BlacKkKlansman, Ryan Coogler’s Black Panther, Boots Riley’s Sorry to Bother You, and (shortly) Barry Jenkins’s If Beale Street Could Talk, moviegoers in search of black characters no longer need to look over the shoulder of a white director or co-star in order to find them.
Was looking for another movie and bumped into this and it reads far differently now that the film is unquestionably a success.

Post Reply