![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bedsitter23In LD's The Butler, Forest Whittaker plays Cecil Gaines, a btler who served four decades in the White House. Through his family, there runs subplots that span six decades of Civil Rights in America from Emmett Till until Obama was elected to the White House.
It is a very ambitious film, and though some people have jumped to Forrest Gump comparisons (I suppose that was inevitable), the film remains serious in its direction.
Some will complain about the subplots, either that it is too simplistic and did not go enough in explaining the struggle; while others will probably say it's too preachy or it's pushing an agenda. Personally, I felt it stuck the right balance between the two- trying to fulfill an ambitious goal for itself and bring this great story to a mass audience.
Perhaps, it's biggest flaw is that the subplot is apparently fictitious while Gaines's story of the White House butler is based in reality. Normally, I would have a problem with that, but here, I think it is wholly appropriate to show what was going on in the White House and what was going on in Black America. The film talks a lot about 'two faces', and the subplots are appropriate to tell an epic story.
Of course, Whittaker is outstanding, but so is the whole cast. Oprah Winfrey gives an Oscar-caliber performance. We forget some times that she was an acclaimed actress before she became the lady who gave away all the cars.
A certain type of person will complain of a 'Hollywood Agenda", but I felt that through each President, the White House was always treated with respect. They will point out that Reagan is portrayed as a man who fought sanctions against apartheid-era South Africa, but I didn't feel he was mocked in any way. It ends with Gaines cheering on for Obama, which will annoy some, but it speaks more to the bigger picture that Obama has opened a World that was never available to Gaines as a young man.
It clearly is out to be ambitious, but I think it mostly succeeds. At 135 mins, it starts to drag a bit towards the end, but what would you cut out? Obama's election is the proper coda. Not everyone is going to be satisfied with a movie trying to accomplish this scope, but this film mostly does. If it is not an Oscar-caliber movie, it is at least in the ball park.
A misstep for me was the A-list of actors who played the Presidents (Robin Williams as Ike, John Cusack as Nixon, Liev Schrieber as LBJ, James Marsden as JFK, and Alan Rickman and Jane Fonda as the Reagans). It may have been a grand idea, but it was a bit distracting (especially in the case of Cusack and Williams, who do look the part but can't overcome it).
Overall, a pretty solid movie for the scope of what it was set out to do. Worth seeing at least once.
It is a very ambitious film, and though some people have jumped to Forrest Gump comparisons (I suppose that was inevitable), the film remains serious in its direction.
Some will complain about the subplots, either that it is too simplistic and did not go enough in explaining the struggle; while others will probably say it's too preachy or it's pushing an agenda. Personally, I felt it stuck the right balance between the two- trying to fulfill an ambitious goal for itself and bring this great story to a mass audience.
Perhaps, it's biggest flaw is that the subplot is apparently fictitious while Gaines's story of the White House butler is based in reality. Normally, I would have a problem with that, but here, I think it is wholly appropriate to show what was going on in the White House and what was going on in Black America. The film talks a lot about 'two faces', and the subplots are appropriate to tell an epic story.
Of course, Whittaker is outstanding, but so is the whole cast. Oprah Winfrey gives an Oscar-caliber performance. We forget some times that she was an acclaimed actress before she became the lady who gave away all the cars.
A certain type of person will complain of a 'Hollywood Agenda", but I felt that through each President, the White House was always treated with respect. They will point out that Reagan is portrayed as a man who fought sanctions against apartheid-era South Africa, but I didn't feel he was mocked in any way. It ends with Gaines cheering on for Obama, which will annoy some, but it speaks more to the bigger picture that Obama has opened a World that was never available to Gaines as a young man.
It clearly is out to be ambitious, but I think it mostly succeeds. At 135 mins, it starts to drag a bit towards the end, but what would you cut out? Obama's election is the proper coda. Not everyone is going to be satisfied with a movie trying to accomplish this scope, but this film mostly does. If it is not an Oscar-caliber movie, it is at least in the ball park.
A misstep for me was the A-list of actors who played the Presidents (Robin Williams as Ike, John Cusack as Nixon, Liev Schrieber as LBJ, James Marsden as JFK, and Alan Rickman and Jane Fonda as the Reagans). It may have been a grand idea, but it was a bit distracting (especially in the case of Cusack and Williams, who do look the part but can't overcome it).
Overall, a pretty solid movie for the scope of what it was set out to do. Worth seeing at least once.
