"The Butler" dvd review

[madmac]

:T

This is a very good film!. Very refreshing considering how much garbage I've seen in the last 6 months :roll:. This is a rather long film and it's VERY ambitious.....perhaps overly ambitious. Why I say this is that this film attempts to cover the entire US civil rights movement, all the way from the 1920's right up to the election of Obama!. That's a lot to cover!. I couldn't help but feel as I watched this that it could have worked out better as a mini series than a movie. Parts of it (Especially the beginning) felt rushed. Decades are covered here along with many presidential administrations. This film is ALL about the details.... and many details about how people's attitude's slowly changed towards blacks in America are covered here. The question about the accuracy of the facts of how things really went down in those days are apparent here. I'm not saying they are not accurate, but I did ask the question to myself at times watching this.

Given our modern times and the general feelings now about equality, I have to admit I was shocked and somewhat embarrassed watching this. How could people have been so stupid and bigoted!. In closing, I realize that even NOW, discrimination still exists. There are job interviews I've gone into over the years and I KNOW.......FOR A FACT, that a qualified black man would NOT get the job!. I imagine a black man walking through the door of the manager's office and imagine the expression on his face upon seeing him. It's sad.

This is the best thing on the DVD shelves currently. See it!!. 8.5/10 stars for this ambitious effort!. :T

There are some disturbing, violent scenes in this movie and therefore, I would not recommend it for kids under 14 years.

[Ovation]

The issue of "accuracy" in historical feature films is a very tricky one (it is a professional research interest of mine and was the subject of my graduate work). Feature films necessarily have to compress events (as, incidentally, do all traditional forms of historical presentation--books, journal articles, etc.) and there will always be things that are "missing". Moreover, films typically (outside of more experimental forms of cinema) have to offer a coherent narrative structure--at least make some effort at doing so. This almost always requires composite characters and dramatic liberties in order to make the story flow. This kind of approach is usually where most people get upset about the film (any film of the genre) over "inaccuracies". It helps a great deal to remember that historical films, whether feature films or documentaries, are constructs and not raw archival material (actually, documentaries are often, particularly of late, equally, if not more, distorting of history than mainstream feature films--but that's for another discussion). Moreover, feature film makers have multiple goals to fulfil, sometime contradictory. If it is a commercial feature film, it must have the goal of earning a return on investment. That places pressures on the process that are not necessarily aligned with "accuracy". If the filmmakers are serious about hewing to real events, then there is a pressure to be as truthful as possible in representing the material onscreen. And therein lies the rub. "Truth", "facts" and "accuracy" are all closely related, but they are not synonyms nor are they interchangeable. I can use "facts" to construct an entirely false narrative. I can be "accurate" in every detail and still do the same. I can put together a collection of dramatizations and even entirely invented scenes and be far closer to the "truth" of an historical event or person than someone else who has relied on more "facts" and "accuracy". Neither the process nor the result are nearly as cut and dried as most people presume.

Essentially, when we examine historical feature films and their relationship to the actual events they purport to convey, it is paramount that we let go of the notion that such films should be judged against the same criteria as a scholarly monograph, article or survey of history. Such an approach is neither fair to the films nor especially illuminating of the benefits such films can provide. The strength of historical feature films is, when done well, approximating the "feel" of a period or event. For all of its flaws (and there are many, both as a film and as history), I have always found something of value in the film Amistad, to take one example. When I am short on time, I use its recreation of the Middle Passage (the transport of captured Africans across the Atlantic to be sold into slavery) as a powerful visual aid when teaching about the slave trade. The film is set in the 1830s, so it is not "accurate", in strict terms, to the voyages of the 1600s (the period in which I usually address this topic). Nevertheless, the minor differences in dress, ship construction and so on are unimportant when compared to the ways in which the journey remained similar over hundreds of years. The visual impact is far more compelling than any written account (and I've read many) of the Middle Passage and it is a more powerful way of transmitting "historical truth" about that harrowing journey, despite it being a dramatized, composite recreation of many such voyages (thus not "factual" or "accurate" in the purist sense). And when I do have time to view the entire film with the class, then its flaws become teaching moments that make my students better critical viewers of historical feature films (and any other visual historical material)--much like they become better critical readers through their more traditional assignments.

All of this long-winded text (sorry, occupational hazard) is to say--with The Butler or any other historical feature film--don't let "facts" and "accuracy" necessarily impede access to "truth". No historical truth can be fully presented in any format--traditional or otherwise. Look for that which feature films about history do best--the "spirit" of the times as opposed to the "letter". And feature films should never be viewed as the "final word" on any historical subject but rather as the starting point to inspire further exploration. When viewed from that perspective, "accuracy" becomes less essential (you can get facts from other sources) and these films become more enjoyable on their own terms.

One last thing--I am not suggesting that historical feature films should just get a pass from factual accuracy (U-571 is, for example, a significantly disappointing film on that score, even granting the leeway I normally give such films), nor am I suggesting they should be immune from criticism. But there reaches a point where many people focus too much on the details and lose sight of the greater point the filmmakers are attempting to convey. Just something to remember when watching historical feature films.

[George Bellefontaine]

I wish I could attend your classes, Paul.

[aud19]

Looking forward to watching this one.....now to find the time...

[Chris D]

I wish I could attend your classes, Paul.

+1

As for the film, I'm definitely looking forward to seeing it. I'm cringing a bit inside, though, as to whether it will present a particular political spin, particularly with the amount of influence I heard Oprah had in pushing the movie.

[wkhanna]

Saw this over the weekend.

Everyone should watch this film.........twice.

One of the best in years, IMNSHO.

[Chris D]

Watched it. Good movie! I particularly enjoyed the saga-like story of the Butler as a person, as well as the central theme of civil rights. I did not enjoy the somewhat-subtle implications that the filmmakers made on political issues from the central themes. When the film was over and I saw it was a Weinstein film, I wasn't too surprised. At least they weren't bluntly beaten like a dead horse. As to things that were depicted in in the film, first, I think it's important for us to acknowledge the horrible ugliness that has existed as part of human history, and must continually ask ourselves if those things still exist, or if we're fooling ourselves to think we're past them. Boy, the filmmakers sure didn't like certain presidencies, though! On both the left and right, certain presidents were quite vilified, even with things that were not historically accurate. As Ovation points out, though, this may not need to be 100% accurate for posterity, and I'll at least try to give a partial pass on at least one scene in the movie that was incredibly dramatic for emotional effect, really to make the viewer feel a certain way.

I did throw up a bit seeing Jane Fonda play her role.

Not bad. Worthwhile viewing for most everyone. :3: out of :5:

[aud19]

Watched "The Butler" on the weekend. Good movie, touching, well acted. Brought to life a "challenging" period in American history well I thought. Nothing vastly ground breaking but well worth a watch IMO 7.5/10

Not sure why the hate for Jane though Chris? It was a small role i thought she did well enough...

[Ovation]

I would venture a guess that it has to do with "Hanoi Jane" playing Nancy Reagan. But that's just a guess.

[aud19]

I guess...? I mean she IS an actress simply playing a role....and from what I saw in the movie both her performance and the script largely painted the former first lady in a rather positive light. Not to mention that Vietnam was over 6 years before the Reagans were even in the White House. Just a little lost on any (particularly negative) connection between her and Nancy.

[Chris D]

I don't intend to stir something up. Just that treason and Nancy Reagan should have no association.

[George Bellefontaine]

I don't know what juice Jane was drinking that day in Hanoi. She has said she was sorry many times, but it's not likely that any American serviceman will ever accept her apology, and I can understand why. I have my own opinion of what made her the kind of woman she was during that period in her life, but like Chris, I don't intend to stir things up, so we'll just leave it at that.

[Chris D]

(just to be clear, I'd say the same relating to most any first lady, not just Mrs. Reagan)