Yes, only I’ll be bringing my boyfriend home for spring break all next week and he’s not the biggest fan of watching artsy films or spending money.
I wouldn’t say A Separation is artsy. Maybe mundane and simple for those accustomed to bigger productions.
But that’s exactly it’s charm!
I wanted to do that, but the movie times were way whacked and the theatre is out of town.
Why were they so strange? I think at the theater I’m going to they’re at 6 and 8 PM. Personally, I prefer matinees, but I want to see “La Luna” now!
It’s already kind of early but I think I’m going to see more movies in theaters this year if possible. Not just the popcorn flicks or animated movies but also the Oscar fare and critically acclaimed/indie/foreign fare. I have a feeling I’m going to turn into one of those Oscar geeks who will have a checklist to see all the top 10 best films and such. And I don’t even agree with the Oscars a lot of the time… 
Do they still say that a movie won an Award on a DVD cover?
Only if they win the award before the release. Or, in some occasions, they have a sticker with the information over the cover.
The following is a reply from a conversation I was having with mentalguru in the Rango thread, but it was going on in the wrong board, so it should be continue here, as it’s related to the Academy Awards. If anyone is interested in joining the discussion, it starts here: [url]My List of Assorted Bests:]
I completely agree with that, which is why I also backed up my claims with those of experts: film experts, most of whom have praised the film.
That’s actually the same argument I used when I told you not to call The Social Network a “bad” film, because experts know more than us and they say otherwise. Same with The Help.
Social or political groups may have its problems with it (as I’ve said, most pictures that board controversial topics will be trashed by some people or other), but film experts avail it as a good cinematographic product, and that’s fact.
I’ll leave the racial matter aside, then, because people have the right to be offended by personal reasons. I just think they’re wrong this time and that the film was made with good intentions and that it doesn’t seek to insult anyone.
Because it only plays in the town where I go to college, but my college is on the other side to town. I take the bus to school, I don’t drive my car to school, so if I went to the movie It’d be really late and I’d get home super late and I don’t have a lot of time, so it’s just strange time to my schedule.
Yes
Probably best it is talked about here, thanks for the move!
Intentions are, unfortunately, not magic. In the end I’d trust those who are actually involved in African American history as well as the former maids to draw the important conclusions on that rather than well, let’s be blunt, a group which is probably (for the most part) white men without those kind of credentials in history or though personal experience. They’re just less likely to make the right choices in who to nominate with such a sensitive topic. The thing is as I’ve been saying the entire movie is about racism, and if it fails to convey it well enough (as historical experts and ex-maids state) then it probably shouldn’t have been made. The book already had it’s controversy, the film made even more.
Many acclaimed films have indeed been less than sensitive about subjects like racism or have used stereotypes. But while that’s not a good thing either it’s just… rascim is the entire basis of the movie and thus why it receives the attention it does particularly in that area.
No doubt some films? Get weird criticism, like the idea of Disney trying to intentionally corrupt children. Things like this are rediculous. Other things can be criticisms which are leaded in bigotry itself- without fail if you have a positive muslim character for instance on a tv show or movie there will be bigots out there complaining about it, honestly believing that islam is ‘eeeevil’, or heck portraying any religion other than their own as positive at all as bad or ‘bad for children’.
“Oh nooo, they might think that islamic people are… people with feelings too, rather than faceless monsters who want to destroy us all! D:”
(Granted people will rarely admit to being bigoted, they try to justify such things or statements against oppressed groups by saying it’s about the economy or security or some baloney like that. Try to justify it, you know? Because then somehow it’s magically not bigotry then. Which consciously they know is bad.).
In the end though some criticisms are perfectly valid such as when movie is depicting eras of oppression or oppressed groups when experts on the subject or those who experienced it discuss it.
Most people know consciously that bigotry is bad and don’t want to perpetuate such things. I believe most people want to be accepting and don’t want to be racist. However even in cinema, especially in the past many things which were acceptable back then, a part of even acclaimed cinema wouldn’t pass today. Like the concept of ‘black face’, and Disney, much as it tries to hide it, is hardly innocent in protrayals which insulted people either at points of its history even if they try to hide from it. The thing is though back then those things weren’t universally accepted either as perfectly fine, heck there were people who weren’t even in the oppressed group who though it wrong too.
As a society now, most bigotry is a lot more… subtle, and ingrained for things like race, (though of course the hard core- killing and assault for not being white still exists too). Like the fact in psychologicaly white employers are less likely to hire people with names which sound ‘black’? That the police are more likely to stop people who aren’t white and have heavy charges made when a white person would get off or a lighter sentence? Most of these employers/police/judges aren’t probably thinking consciously not to hire someone black/be tougher on those who are (though of course such people exist too and possibly more than we think), because of course racism is bad and they do indeed know that, but sub-conciously, this can certainly happen. And in media too this can be subtle and ingrained as it reflects our society and how we view society as well as history and ourselves. One instance of this is constantly making the main protagonist white or male, acting as if that’s the only group that is truly relate able for everyone, and that anything else is a deviation from the default and too risky. There has to be a ‘reason’ they’re not white. And it’s for the most part accepted as normal. But things change. So who knows what in the future will be making the majority of peoples heads tilt when they look at our movies as we do with films which employ things like black face? Will they be as disgusted or weirded out by some of the issues which exist today mostly accepted as normal? Honestly for some things it’s as if we only hear them because of the internet and people can find each other better.
As I mentioned before, rather like the controversial Song of the South (only The help movie has apparently better acting etc. and isn’t as boring) it’s not hateful or malicious and yes probably has good intentions. But that doesn’t stop it from being potentially problematic. The problem also is it sells itself as both historical and about racism of the times as it’s main theme and plot. And that’s really the most important thing dragging both movie and book down. It fails on it’s own premise according to experts on the issue of history as well as those who experienced it. It could apparently make a good coming of age story otherwise if it hadn’t engaged itself in this particular topic and (apparently) failed to deliver on it accurately/ get the full feel of the times.
Wow, mentalguru, you’re back to your very long posts! 
I understand everything that you say. I liked your brief explanation of bigotry, with very illustrative instances, and your references to other films accused of racism.
But, and this is the actual point of all my posting, I still fail to see how The Help is actually racist (and therefore “bad”). I respect the persons who felt insulted (offense is a very personal thing), but I think they’re not being fair with the film.
The trouble is that I often forget that you haven’t actually watched it, even when you very appropriately acknowledge this by using words like “apparently” before making an accusation.
I think that, before continuing with this, you should watch the film, because maybe you’ll agree with me that it’s inoffensive enough (though I rather doubt it! ). Then you can tell me in which specific instances the film insulted the affected racial group.
To date, nobody has expressed concern about this from anyone in my (real) life, specially from colored people, who were very charmed by the film (and I’d dare to say we have a lot of them in my country).
Online the situation has been a little different, but not too much. I’ve heard a couple of complaints in the commentary boards of film sites, but they are a minority, and most of them refer to the film “trying to be funny about a serious issue” than about actually being racist.
Oh. A lot of my newer DVD’s don’t have them.
I like to play devil’s advocate sometimes. I personally enjoyed The Help more than I thought I would, but I do agree with and acknowledge the issues brought up in several articles. My contribution to the discussion is rather long (oh dear!), so I put it in spoilers for anyone interested.
[spoiler]When a film attempts to depict a minority culture, it’s almost inevitable that people from those respective cultures will be offended and outraged. This is not to say that those offended by The Help are wrong in feeling offended, but I expect controversy with these sort of things and I think the overall intention of unifying people in overcoming evil racism should at least be somewhat appreciated given the popularity of the book and film; both have clearly had an impact. It may not be a prime example of depicting civil rights history (in a fictional setting or otherwise), but I see it as more of a stepping stone. Stockett should have done better research, obviously, but I think her good intentions mean more than anything. It’s a lesson for future storytellers to grow from, and I don’t think it should make The Help a bad film.
Also, I think the term “racist,” despite its dictionary definition, should be more clearly defined when used. The Help obviously does not portray whites as inherently superior to blacks; in fact, almost all whites depicted in the film are evil and we as an audience are manipulated into despising them. Now, The Help may and probably does include multiple black stereotypes, and for that it could be labeled as perpetuating stereotypes. But I think drawing a line between inaccurate stereotypes and blatant white suprematism should be necessary.
One thing that bothers me about criticism of The Help is the suggestion that Skeeter is the protagonist. Ha! Really, even though Emma Stone has many admirers nowadays, how many people were strongly affected by her character? How many people cared about Skeeter as much as Aibileen? Compare that to how many people have universally praised Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer. I don’t think that can entirely be attributed to “white guilt” and patronizing, either; both actresses gave fine performances and had more dimensional characters than the white women in the film. The film is not purposely portraying blacks negatively, but it could have been executed in a more respectful, less ignorant manner. This can most certainly be attributed to the director/writer, producers, and author of the original book. More consulting and research should have been done, or perhaps a talented black writer could have written the screenplay (I liked the directing style—it had a nice, refreshing pace and feel).
I wanted to share some quotes from articles criticizing The Help for depicting black women as condescending stereotypes. Both articles are well-written and make several strong points but have a common thread of criticizing whites for ignorantly sugar-coating things and trying to be optimistic about overcoming racism.
"I listened to the women around me [in the theater watching The Help ], certainly well-meaning, many of them of the Golden Girls demographic, chattering about how much they loved the book and how excited they were and how long they had been waiting for this movie to open. I wondered if they were reminiscing about the good old days, then decided that was unfair of me." (In the same article, this woman also discusses seeing another movie about racism and not wanting to see a white person for three days after.)
Firstly, I appreciate the honesty of this statement and sympathize as well (though I have rarely felt judged by my skin color outside of attending a primarily black school years ago), but this quote truly upsets me. I feel like it puts the burden of guilt onto innocent people, and furthermore the assumption that skin color correlates with actions is upsetting and arguably quite prejudice. Sure, there may be a sound reason for feeling such a way, and at least the author immediately admits it’s “unfair” but regardless I’m hurt by this. Furthermore, no one should have to feel this way and it’s extremely unfortunate (not wrong—unfortunate) that people’s scars are still healing. I can’t tell anyone how to feel, especially when I haven’t walked in that person’s shoes, but having these thoughts are only going to separate people in the end and this article makes me wonder just how many historically oppressed people feel this way and if the author herself will ever be able to overcome those feelings.
"Implicit in The Help and a number of other popular works that deal with the civil rights era is the notion that a white character is somehow crucial or even necessary to tell this particular tale of black liberation."
With the issue of a white character coming to the rescue, I suppose it could be interpreted the same way people criticize damsels-in-distress in Disney films, but I see it more as a situation where two parties join together in unity and help one another and society in general. During the March on Washington, for instance, there were whites attending, and there were white conductors and supporters for the Underground Railroad. Whites were not the heroes of the Civil Rights Movement, but they certainly were there to stand up against racism, and that shouldn’t be ignored simply because it’s “not their fight.” People outside the minority (whichever minority that may be) should not be criticized or mocked for helping in overcome oppression. Examples: the recent debate over gay marriage and adoption rights in America (take note: there are many gay/straight alliances across the countries), women’s rights (men can be feminists, too!), the Holocaust, and so on and so forth. Of course, all of these events and groups have different circumstances, but they still share some common elements.
Back to the film’s story, the hero of the film is not Skeeter, because I would argue that viewers care more about ending the suffering of blacks (specifically female maids) than Skeeter proving her skills as a writer. I got the impression from the film that if characters like Aibileen and Minnie “spoke up” without a sort of safety net provided by the published book, there would have been dire consequences. I would have loved to see the maids/help gain the strength to speak up on their own, but what would have happened as a result? Whether or not this is historically relevant isn’t as important, because it’s relevant in the reality of the book and film themselves.
Even though the horrors of lynching and such were not discussed in the film and neither was the treatment of women by male characters (who are generally not present for the most part), I hardly feel that Americans watched this film without the anxiety of such a thing occurring. At least I didn’t. On that note, to say this film is “candy-coated” may be true, especially because it has such an optimistic resolution, but I hardly think it is void of suffering. On multiple occasions I was upset and uncomfortable.
Now, I would like to see Hollywood actually fund a movie that is historically accurate and brutally honest, in which blacks are not “magical” or speak with a stereotypical broken dialect, but I guess we may have to wait for that, unfortunately. I don’t think we should have to wait for such a thing in 2012, but it seems inevitable. One major issue with depicting a culture respectfully is to involve people from that culture as much as possible. Directing, writing, acting, etc. It’s usually best for a person to tell their own story or at least a story they can relate to. That said, I also think a white woman should be able to write a novel about the suffering of blacks without being criticized, and seeing that one of the sites mentalguru linked to recommended such books, they do exist! Also, here’s a list I found of movies depicting racism. Funny (scratch that: sad and disappointing) to see how most of these feature white characters at the forefront. I don’t think each individual film is wrong in doing that, though I haven’t seen most of them, but I would like to see that cliché overcome.
Personally, one of my favorite movies involving racial issues is Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing, which initially has subtle tension but gradually climbs to an alarming and disturbing climax which suggests the severity of modern-day “closet racism.” Moreover, DTRT does not necessarily glorify one culture over another, and everyone essentially has their flaws (note: the film has racial stereotypes but I see it as more intentional than actual ignorance). It’s a brilliant film for anyone interested.[/spoiler]
I agree with everything you said. Your fluently with English certainly allowed you to say things I only thought about.
My favorite part would be this:
Thanks! I did write about this in one of my earlier posts. To me Skeeter isn’t a protagonist. She’s the main catalyst in what is essentially an ensemble story.
I’m also glad you mentioned Do The Right Thing. Another great film against racism that’s often accused of being racist itself.
You guys got any predicsions for next years awards? Right know I see Brave and Dark Knight Rise’s winning stuff.
on the subject, I bought Hugo today. The DVD’s were packaged before the Academy Awards I’m assuming (since the movie was released only a couple days after the Academy Awards). And on the cover there was a sticker saying “Nomianted for 11 Oscars including Best Picture”
On the The Help subject. I can’t make a comment on it being demeaning or insulting, since I myself am not an African American woman, or have relatives who were harmed by their treatment.
There are grups of African American woman who find that it glosses over the true discrimination and treatment of black slaves, espeically on the area of rape. However, it’s lack of mention on such subjects does not take away from the quality of the film, story telling, or acting itself.
It’s so early! Hmm… I can see THG being nominated for music/songs and maybe some technical things. Lincoln will probably get nominated, especially Daniel Day Lewis (if that’s not a perfect casting, I don’t know what is). Also: Les Miserables, Django Unchained, and The Hobbit may have a good chance. Gravity, Kill Bin Laden (terrible name), and The Great Gatsby could be a hit or miss.
No idea about Best Animated Feature, though Brave is obviously a strong contender.
So far I see Wreak-It-Ralth maybe getting a nomination. Not sure about Dreamworks. There movies are Rise of the Guardians and Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted. Rise of the Guardians sounds better to me.
Interesting points, q_o_p.
And yes E-J-E- that was one point, about sexual assault. It was frightfully common that white male employers would sexually assault their black female employees and maids. And reporting such an event is hard enough for any woman today included, but back then, for them especially, it was even worse. And while I still have yet to see it (plan to rent it) it doesn’t sound like that’s looked into.
Having privilege doesn’t make anyone a bad person if they have it, and neither does it make the writer of the original book, a white woman, automatically bad. But it is something which should be recognised I feel as whole. As in recognising that you have it and therefore your experiences on certain topics can mean caution is required on treading about certain subjects (and listening after all). Also things don’t exist in bubbles- the butterfly effect applies, and how society warps and changes or acts as a whole can intercede and effect personal interactions as well as vice versa.
Also of course, another thing about this movie could be the fact things seem to be stirring in parts of America regarding how kids are taught history- such as the Tea Party thinking slavery shouldn’t be used in talking about to much when it comes to the Founding Fathers. White washing and watering things down as a subject taught in a way in which people are already apparently dissatisfied at. In general, it’s also why the (just passed) Black History Month exists (November over here, but February in America). And Women’s history month too is now happening in America. You will also, it seems online, without fail, get people whining about there not even being a White or Man’s history month ignoring the fact that is every single other month in history class. There’s a wealth of history and heroes out there which doesn’t/who don’t get a lot of attention or as much as such things should, so it’s the reason these months exist. But even so, not everyone follows it from what I hear and it’s still not really ‘equal’ (plus at school we never got our equivilant over here or our black history month, it’s honestly something I only heard of after leaving school). Most of the important people people talk about in history are white and male. Open an old textbook or current one and it seems there are only a few exceptions here and there not counting the wives/lovers of these men. So when a big budget movie seemingly waters important events down… yeah I can see why people would certainly have a problem with it. And there are definitely more people talking about it I think, or finding these articles at least because well, the Oscars met the near end of America’s black history month.
History is a fascinating thing. There are female and POC with whom some of us might not be here today were it not for their heroism. And yet we hardly ever hear of them at all.
In general racism seems to cross a spectrum of things from the horribly in your face, deliberate kind to the merely ignorant. I think some of us would have those odd well meaning older family members which make us cringe for instance in the latter. Or friends, or ourselves in the past (I have). Certainly, one is I suppose ‘preferable’ to the other but still it would be a better place if neither existed.
–
An interesting idea however on the whole main white protaganists thing as a wider deal is also the Bechdel test- wherein to pass a movie must have at least two female characters who talk to one another at least once and the subject of men/ a man does not come up in said conversation. The test itself isn’t enough to condemn one movie or laud a movie as ‘feminist’ (after all, Twilight: Eclipse, I believe technically passes it!), but it’s more of a sense that the fact so many films fail is the problem. Because most of the main protagonists are male (and white) and most female characters are only added as the love interest to such a main character. It’s more of a wider problem in the end.
Of course sometimes false criticism can come against female characters (through being too feminine or masculine for instance, when there are actually many ways to be a woman).
I think if The Help existed in a world where many accurate historical films existed covering these issues it might have simply just been ignored at best. It would have still received criticism too, but with so few films addressing the topic out there I guess a lot more people who are experts have the real experience behind their backs are going to tear it apart. Especially since it’s so popular and got an Oscar nomination. So in a way these criticisms should be aired out so yes,people will learn. The Help could be used as a good or famous example of how sometimes even perhaps technically good intentions can go wrong and how much research especially involving history and sensitive eras matter. That racism crosses a whole spectrum of things and that both society and individual events and actions can feed back into each other and don’t exist in a bubble in either case. We are products of our history as well as what we work towards in the future and how we all treat each other in the present. And history is also there for us to learn from. From history we can learn why some things are the way they are now.
This is a good point and exposes a deeper problem with this debate: we need more films based around cultures other than the majority! i personally would like to see more quality films based on such subjects (meaning not Tyler Perry films).
I’ve heard of the Bechdel test and it’s pretty sad. One would think that a conversation between two women not concerning a man would be simple to spot in any film, but alas… Doesn’t seem like it. Again, this is probably due to a bigger problem: men dominating the film industry. This whole post reads as anti-white men, whom I’m really okay with, but not so much the dominating part.
The rewriting history issue is painful for me to think about, especially as a future teacher. For those that don’t know, the state board (or some important group) of Texas voted to have history textbooks edited to meet a conservative/Christian bias. The most unfortunate thing about this is that Texas has so many people that such a thing could affect all American students! Sigh… Not sure if that editing stuff was ever put into place. I sure hope not.
I’m satisfied with The Artist winning Best Picture, but a little disappointed Hugo didn’t win.
I’m glad to hear about other Hugo fans. I’m also interested in seeing how I react to seeing the film a second time.