LEE DANIELS' THE BUTLER (Lee Daniels 2013)

[Chris Knipp]

Lee Daniels: LEE DANIELS' THE BUTLER (2013)


LIEV SHREIBER (AS LBJ), FOREST WHITAKER, AND WANDA LEIGH (AS LADY BIRD JOHNSON) IN THE BUTLER

Tripping through American history, lips buttoned tight

Telling the story of an exceptionally faithful and enduring White House employee who served through many administrations, Lee Daniels' The Butler attempts to run through not just every president from Eisenhower to Obama but virtually the whole history of race in America. It seems like he (the protagonist, played by a very deadpan Forest Whitaker) and Oprah (Winfrey, as his wife) would be 100 by the end (though he retires with Reagan). This is as much of a lesson in American history as Spielberg's Lincoln but less high-toned and more kitsch as well as more visceral and touching. The audience when I watched the movie was largely black and they were pretty enthusiastic. Fault it though you may, The Butler provides lots to cheer or cry about. It's received respectable reviews, with neither the raves Daniels inexplicably got for his lurid Precious nor the unjustified attacks for his enjoyably campy The Paperboy. It's a kick to watch Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan. Some other cameos are good, though many are slapdash at best. The presidents don't look or act particularly like who they're supposed to be.

There's something breathtakingly facile about the witnessing to history that takes place in The Butler. Cecil Gaines (Forrest Whittiker), who has fled from a deep south cotton plantation as a boy in 1927 after seeing his father shot dead for objecting when a woman is raped, gets a job at a nice Washington, DC hotel and learns to be a waiter. He's told that the epitome of skill is to seem nonexistent. "The room should feel empty when you're in it," he's instructed. This is how he lives his life. Carrying trays to the Oval Office, he remains buttoned down and tight-lipped, as he must, when the most crucial issues to black people are being discussed. The real action is approached by proxy, not through Cecil but his son Louis (David Oyelowo), who grows up to attend Fisk University in Tennessee and becomes a militant participating in sit-ins and marching and going to jail with Martin Luther King. Louis even becomes a Black Panther, later (having it all) managing to enter mainstream politics. It's only by flipping back and forth between Cecil's paradoxically posh but servile work and his son's risky activism that the story achieves its historical relevance.

We are asked to believe that Cecil Gaines' silence and patience are heroic. And they are. But the implication that his patience and persistence had anything to do with Obama's becoming president is factitious. Cecil's longevity at the White House is impressive but it's hard to see how it influenced the course of history. And as for his militant son Louis, Cecil objects to everything he does, and for many years they don't even speak. In Louis' Black Panther phase even Gloria expels him and his rude radical girlfriend Carol (Yaya Alafia), whom she calls "low-class," from the house. This makes way for a corny reunion between the retired Cecil and the now respectable, but still activist, Louis at the end.

The Butler is a sightseeing tour. As black American critic Armond White says in his sharp, perceptive review, most of its historical figures have an artificial, "waxworks" quality. This becomes a tour of celebrity actors. We wind up gawking at them, like tourists at the White House. If Daniels had chosen to work on a smaller canvas and observed his protagonist at work with more precision and in more detail, this movie might have revealed more about race, politics, and human nature than it does.

The home life of Cecil Gaines revolves around his chain-smoking, alcoholic wife Gloria (Oprah Winfrey) and his two sons. The younger one, Charlie (Isaac White, Elijah Kelley), not as ambitious and smart as Louis, is funny and may be gay (like the filmmaker), but he too turns into a token, leaving college and going off to Vietnam to become a stand-in for all the black men who died there while Louis, and Muhammad Ali, won't go off and kill other people of color. Gloria too is a missed opportunity. She has a flirtation that might have turned into considerably more with a no-count neighbor (an enjoyably sleazy Terrence Howard) who's a frequent drinking companion while Cecil is working long hours at the White House. But Daniels isn't going to take any walks on the wild side here. Gloria banishes Howard, telling him to get his "yellow ass" out, and she quits drinking and lasts a long time, serving almost as faithfully at home as her husband does under all those presidents.

The presidents come and go. Do they really matter? Daniels makes use of liberal-left actors, Vanessa Redgrave as the southern cotton farm grandma whose son kills Cecil's father, Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan, John Cusack as Nixon. We get a glimpse of Jackie Kennedy (Minka Kelly) in the blood-stained pink suit, memorable because it is a spectral, dreamlike moment. Daniels gives us two presidential paradoxes. Lyndon Johnson (Liev Schreiber), shown, with the director's penchant for colorful crudity, giving public audiences while sitting on the toilet (with his dogs), passes the most significant civil rights legislation since Lincoln. But he also throws around the N-word, the black White House staffers have to aver, more freely than any of they do. The other paradox: the anti-black Ronald Reagan (Alan Rickman) is the one who finally forces the White House's bigoted manager to promote black employees and pay them equal salaries as Cecil has petitioned him to do through three administrations. And it's Reagan and Nancy who invite Cecil and Gloria to a state dinner -- as guests.

All this is based on an article by Will Haygood in the Washington Post that came out when Obama won the Presidency in 2008, "A Butler Well Served by this Election." In the article, the butler in question, Eugene Allen, who served from Truman through Reagan, is like Daniels' Cecil Gaines, a rack on which to hang many historical details. Haygood's focus is on the slow appearance of black officials in the various administrations, a subject Daniels overlooks. This White House butler didn't have a militant son or a Django-like cotton plantation childhood. He just suffered through a youth in Jim Crow Virginia. All the rest is invented for the movie. Daniels has tried to make Cecil and his militant son stand for all black experience in America from the Twenties through the Eighties, and it's too much.

While The Butler is superficial and simplistic, and it's very valid as Armond White says that Eisenstein would "wince" at the crude cross-cutting between a brutal lunch counter sit-in sequence and a White House state dinner where Cecil's serving, it's nonetheless worth pondering its contrast between the valor of the long suffering older black generations in America and the boldness of the more militant and privileged younger ones. For some of us, the blessed arrival of President Obama will the the deepest irony.

Lee Daniels' The Butler, 132 mins., was released in the US (by the Weinstein Company) 16 August 2013. The inclusion of the director's name in the title was due to a dispute with Warner Bros. about rights to it.

[Chris Knipp]

There is lots more I could tell. I didn't mention that after his father was killed, Vanessa Redgrave tells him not to worry, she will make him a house-N-word. So she does and he really learns to serve then, when he is a kid -- so when he flees to D.C., he can truly say he knows how to serve. And when he gets to his big interview at the White House and shows expertise in food and wine, the Maitre d' (the man in charge of all the butlers and serving staff) says, "You'll make a good house-N-word." Somehow I feel just from the article in the Washington Post and photos that the real life butler, Eugene Allen, was a lot more suave and fun to be around than Forest Whitaker's Cecil Gaines, who is such a sad sack they might sadly want to sack him.

There is also a book by Haygood, THE BUTLER: WITNESS TO HISTORY, but when when Daniels has listed the things he and his writer got from Haywood for the movie, he mentions only the few facts included in the newspaper article. When I say Reagan was anti-black, I meant that he insists, in a scene, that he will veto any bill to condemn or withdraw support from the apartheid government of South Africa. The article says that when he retired Reagan "wrote him a sweet note" and "Nancy Reagan hugged him tight."

[cinemabon]

Instead of a view of black history, I saw a comparative view to the civil rights movement that starts with lynchings in the south and progresses through to the election of the country's first black president - which many African Americans viewed as a historical noteworthy event. I did not see how a domestic in the White House influenced anything. Nor did I see the filmmaker make that assumption. What I saw was restraint on his part as a witness to those presidents who held a white view of black America - that through their generosity they would help the plight of African Americans by offering them a compromise to their social burden of servitude. The film is a microcosm of what happened over a sixty year span in the latter half of the twentieth century with two prominent points of view - that of a struggling middle class that tries to fit into a white world; and that of the courageous civil rights workers (embodied into the one character - sort of a "Zelig" or "Gump" who happens to be at every significant moment during that period - although they left out entirely the 1963 March on Washington that profoundly affected the Kennedy's.)

Overall, the film is a montage of vignettes tied together by the life of one man and his family, shown through his eyes, in his struggle to perform his job, his duty, provide for his family by having to compromise his own personal values while trying to understand the rebellious nature of his son to reject that sort of concession to his character as inadequate and degrading. The two worlds clash and for a long time they did not meet. I can't begin to tell you how personally I felt for this period of time and for those characters' struggles as I witnessed the horrors of segregation personally, fought to end them and split with my parents generation that drove a wedge through many families during this period - not just black families but many families over issues such as Vietnam, Women's Rights, along with Racism and even being Gay.

This film shows that ordinary people fought little battles, while those in the White House strutted and fretted their way about the stage making noise and fury that amounted to nothing. It was the little people, the ordinary people - like you and me - who made the real difference, the same conclusion that Forrest Whitaker's character Daniels comes to conclude when he gazes down at his son's picture and realizes, "He was the real hero." That is when the film hit home for me and that is why I believe this is the best picture of the year.

[cinemabon]

Tony Scott wrote a brilliant review of the film which should be read by all. He caught the spirit of this movie and lays out his argument with great distinction. Kudos, Tony.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2013/08/16...1&pagewanted=1

[Chris Knipp]

Yes it is a history of the civil rights movement as it pertains to black people, and also a history of black people. Is there a bit distinction?

Overall, the film is a montage of vignettes tied together by the life of one man and his family,

Yes.

I can't begin to tell you how personally I felt for this period of time and for those characters' struggles as I witnessed the horrors of segregation personally, fought to end them and split with my parents generation

Yes, I said it was emotional and provides lots to cry and cheer about. But remember what thought or feelings it awakens in you does not validate a work of art. It's very hard to make a great movie out of a succession of vignettes. I think it's a very respectable effort on Daniels' part to set aside his lurid tendencies (was that really a good idea, though?). But it's not a great movie. It just made you imagine the great movie that would have been worthy of your emotions and experiences in your conflicts with your parents and their generation, as you refer to those here.

You, like A.O. Scott, are a white liberal who responds to the vignettes as Daniels wants you to. Armond Whit says it was made for white people. I don't quite agree, but there is that side. I think Scott went overboard.

[cinemabon]

I respectfully disagree. What is art unless it connects with those who view it? If it is meaningless jumble and has no audience, how can it be judged art? What is the criteria that you place so high on art that would make it worthy unless the artist can convey meaning to those who look on their art, no matter how ethereal?

You can call me white and liberal and say that I am seeing the world through rose color glasses, but putting me into a category does not change the view point of others; and Scott is not alone in his evaluation. Because you place a certain critic's voice above others puts you in the precarious position of being closed minded to the opinion of others. You feel that makes one critic's opinion the standard?

I say that this film connects viscerally because the subject matter is raw. This subject goes to the heart of what has been wrong with this country from the start - "All men are created equal." Do we actually believe that to be the case? Our constitution was founded on that simplistic principle. But unless we believe that statement to be true, then we could start "qualifying" our beliefs by saying that gay people shouldn't strive for equality but for some special place where they think they can be equal ("Put them all into San Francisco"). Let's go further and say that anything gay should not be promoted in the schools (a law that was recently passed in North Carolina - not Russia, here in the good ole USA). Let's even say that teachers promoting a gay lifestyle should be fired (another new law in North Carolina); Let's ban gays from being married (Again, right here where I live - and I am appalled by it). Let's not let gays display public affection (Law); Anyone promoting homosexuality in the workplace can be disciplined (Law).

How visceral, how raw, how heartfelt do want it to be Chris before you realize that liberal or not there is a movement afoot in America that wishes there was no equality, there were no black people, they should all go back to Africa or at the very least, be stopped from getting any government assistance to exist! This part of America is very real and if you don't see that on the screen in "The Butler" then you'd better your head out of your ass and get to work stopping this kind of thing from happening all over our country... our country - the land of the free and the brave? No, a land full of racism and prejudice against blacks, against gays, and any one with an open mind. Liberal my ass.

[Chris Knipp]

You can call me white and liberal and say that I am seeing the world through rose color glasses, but putting me into a category does not change the view point of others

No sir, it doesn't.

and Scott is not alone in his evaluation

Scott was more laudatory than any others cited on Metacitic by a fair margin. There was a preponderance of favorable reviews. I thought my review was basically favorable. I am not condemning THE BUTLER and warning people not to see it, but suggesting they might like it, though my big recommendation of Friday's releases is THE SPECTACULAR NOW.

Because you place a certain critic's voice above others puts you in the precarious position of being closed minded to the opinion of others. You feel that makes one critic's opinion the standard?

I don't follow your logic. Actually one critic sometimes "gets it" and others don't. Why should one not prefer one critic's views on a given film to another's? You cite Scott, because you agree with him. I cite Armond White because I value his opinion. I do not wholly agree; he takes a more extreme view, as he usually does. Does this make either of us closed minded?

I say that this film connects viscerally because the subject matter is raw.

I thought I said that too. I said it provides plenty to cry and cheer about.

Maybe we could come together a bit. I might have made my review more positive, put more stress on the film's touching elements and value to those in need of a review of American racial history, and you could pull back a bit on your praise and recognize that the film has some serious faults.

[cinemabon]

I'm afraid this is one time Chris when we shall have to agree to disagree. While a filmmaker and or film nut/historian/admirer/study/ etc. for years (director, producer, editor, actor and theater manager), my critiques tend to come from my gut rather than my brain. I don't think of art in cerebral terms but in emotional one. Perhaps that is the difference between many critics and their audiences as well. How fortunate, I find, when a critic crosses that line and lets the film's content affect him or her as well.

Here we have a highly emotional and charged subject that I believe is far from being resolved in this country (Travon Martin case only two months ago perfect example). This film strikes an emotional chord that many of us who marched and fought for equal rights in this country at a time when the vast majority were against such changes, recognize. That it has flaws are superfluous to its powerful message. I have seen many films in recent years, such as last year's winner for Best Picture, which are very flawed, go on to garner many awards. I believe that in the commercial market of films presented this year, it is important to keep this movie's important message in the limelight and overlook any flaws - no matter how significant some critics might say they are in their opinion - in perspective.

This is not a matter of construct. This is a matter of belief.

[Chris Knipp]

There is no reason why we should agree. If you are making your judgment on the basis of subject matter rather than art I have to disagree with you. Of course the issues are important and Trayvon Martin is a disturbing present example of how much ground has been lost again. But how does that make this a better film, I don't know. Maybe I think a better current film about these issues is FRUITVALE STATION.

I like Lee Daniels, though you might not think so. I haven't seen his first film as a director (SHADOWBOXER) but I have the subsequent three. His critical fortunes have gone up and down. His overall success has been only fair but this is his first good-to-moderate rating, which may be a good sign or a disappointment depending how you look at it. I'd rather he be bolder and more provocative. I look for surprises from him and a healthy indifference to conventions of good taste.

At Cannes Mike D'Angelo whose tweet ratings from there and Toronto I have collated the past two years, gave THE PAPERBOY a "9" rating and tweeted (in part): "Lee Daniels: Worst filmmaker of our time, or worst filmmaker of all time? Discuss." I think people wildly overreacted against THE PAPERBOY. I think they went overboard in their admiration for PRECIOUS (which however I think D'Angelo detested). Critics are being very open-minded to give THE BUTLER nice reviews, considering that they trashed PAPERBOY. I think the quality of Daniels' three last films is more similar one to the other than most realize. He seems to be graded indeed as you do, on the subject matter. But I don't think his treatment of of the civil rights movement, however visceral (the white southern crackers attacking the sit-in demo is brutal), makes a coherent statement that relates well with the framing theme of the father's patient White House service.

Ultimately ratings don't say it all. They're just a guide to the immediately critical reaction, which may be reassessed later. I'm just giving them here FYI.

Metacritic again:

Lee Daniels' The Butler 66

The Paperboy 45

Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire 79

Shadowboxer 33

DANIELS MOVIE CAREER AVERAGE: 55
JIM JARMUSCH: 61
QUENTIN TARANTINO: 64
JUDD APATOW: 67
CLINT EASTWOOD: 69
MARTIN SCORSESE: 73
KATHRYN BIGELOW: 73
PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON: 80

[cinemabon]

If you believe this lends credence to your argument - to take someone's past and say it has an effect on the present - is to misjudge the present. Let the film stand on its own and make your criticism there. I am not concerned with Clint Eastwood's ratings over a lifetime. I address the matter presently before us. Lee Daniel's may have made mud pies until last Friday; but on that day he produced a Cadillac. Whether you drive one is a matter of personal taste.

[Chris Knipp]

I'm assessing not career performances but career critical receptions. You are loading the dice but have come late to the game. It's always better for cinematic discussion to approach the table with the director's whole oeuvre under one's belt. And at the same time to judge each film on its own merits.

[cinemabon]

I'm coming late to the game and loading the dice? You are framing an argument to suit your premise. Should I judge your present level as an artist by the work you did in Kindergarten?

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, there's no reason why it would not make your comments on my artwork more interesting if they took into consideration my juvenile work, without being distracted from the present work itself. Note the whole of what I said:

It's always better for cinematic discussion to approach the table with the director's whole oeuvre under one's belt. And at the same time to judge each film on its own merits.

[cinemabon]

Like Milton Berle, who annoyed director Stanley Kramer when he noticed that Berle would often delay leaving a scene by being the last person in the shot, you insist on having the last word. That said, admit it, Chris. You simply don't understand the oeuvre of the Civil Rights Movement (non sequitur).