Good...but disjointed - Get on Up (2014) Discussion

[–] LnineB 10 years ago

I actually disagree with you, even though I do think the non-linear editing could've been done better.

I think it was a good idea to do it this way to avoid fluff. From what I read this was one of the most true to life biopics. The exception of his mother coming to one of his shows and maybe the Vietnam plane incident, everything was pretty much true. The editing allowed them to focus on the highlights of his career.

I love !

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dan6pitcher 10 years ago

Huh?
This story is a by-the-numbers biopic. No different than Walk The Line, Walk Hard (even though that's a satire), Cadillac Records, Ray, etc. There's nothing unique about this movie because it's a paint-by-numbers genre.

It's entertaining because his life was interesting and his music was fantastic. Showing his evolution from poor child in the backwoods, to the chitlin circuit, to a big star, to the hardest working man in show business, to a drug-addicted wife-beater to his redemption would have been a much better way to do it. It wouldn't have even taken any new scenes, just putting them in order.

It's just a film school way of making something generic and cliche SEEM unique without it being in any way unique.

reply

[–] FuriousQuik 10 years ago

This story is a by-the-numbers biopic. No different than Walk The Line, Walk Hard (even though that's a satire), Cadillac Records, Ray, etc. There's nothing unique about this movie because it's a paint-by-numbers genre.

It's entertaining because his life was interesting and his music was fantastic. Showing his evolution from poor child in the backwoods, to the chitlin circuit, to a big star, to the hardest working man in show business, to a drug-addicted wife-beater to his redemption would have been a much better way to do it. It wouldn't have even taken any new scenes, just putting them in order.

It's just a film school way of making something generic and cliche SEEM unique without it being in any way unique.

By the numbers wouldn't have been as good.

He think hes bad with class! Im gonna rock this shotgun up his *beep* ass!

reply

[–] dan6pitcher 10 years ago

Why not?
This was by-the-numbers...they just put the numbers out of order and broke the 4th wall a few times. My girlfriend said the exact same thing...often you'd spend the first minute of a scene just trying to figure out where in the timeline it fit because it just jumped around.

It's a bio-pic. People go to them expecting something and that expectation is not for a unique and groundbreaking movie, they just want to see an accurate portrayal of that person's life. It can start with a flashback to the childhood (like Walk Hard), but the jumping around just makes the story go out of whack.

reply

[–] FuriousQuik 10 years ago

Why not?
This was by-the-numbers...they just put the numbers out of order and broke the 4th wall a few times. My girlfriend said the exact same thing...often you'd spend the first minute of a scene just trying to figure out where in the timeline it fit because it just jumped around.

It's a bio-pic. People go to them expecting something and that expectation is not for a unique and groundbreaking movie, they just want to see an accurate portrayal of that person's life. It can start with a flashback to the childhood (like Walk Hard), but the jumping around just makes the story go out of whack.

Just like to see something different from time to time that's all.
He think hes bad with class! Im gonna rock this shotgun up his *beep* ass!

reply

[–] dan6pitcher 10 years ago

But it's not different. That's the whole point. It's a generic biopic and in 10 years I will remember the performances and the music, but I won't remember it being any different than Ray or Walk the Line other than the music content and the subject of the film.

Biopics don't make a lot of money, they are usually just a $30-50mm kind of movie unless the subject is someone hugely famous and popular and it's marketed significantly, so they do not need to try and stand out because they only appeal to a small portion of movie-goers. The most successful ones are the ones which paint by numbers and do not try to be too unique.

James Brown's life was fascinating and his evolution incredible, a linear narrative structure would have added more weight to his downfall than the way they would cut around from his successful times, back to that period briefly, back to his good times, back there again, back to his good times, etc. His life was a line, so why make it a series of dots?

reply

[–] TheBeardedWonder 10 years ago

Whats your point here exactly? You say you dont like that it did something different, then say it was by the numbers. Your arguing with yourself...

reply

[–] dan6pitcher 10 years ago

No, I'm not. You're clearly lacking in the reading comprehension department. I said the DIRECTION and EDITING were disjointed...the subject matter and themes of the film were cliche. I'm saying that the film tried too hard to be unique when the movie itself was as generic as they come. Every biopic is the same, it's the least creative of all genres because it's based on a person's life. If it was about a certain time in his life like Lincoln it would be one thing, but it's about his rise to fame, his fall from grace and his redemption. Showing it out of order (and breaking the 4th wall) just took away from the gravity of the film. Brown's life was fascinating, there was no need to jump around, especially that moment from the Little Richard scene to suddenly showing the boxing scene. How did that boxing thing even start? It was just "he's talking to Little Richard, boom, now he's boxing" with no kind of context. This could have been a great biopic because of the performances, but it ended up being mediocre because of the poor direction and editing. The negative reviews of the film nearly all point to this fact. The words the various reviews use to describe it: Disjointed, jumbled, fractured, fragmentary, confusing non-linear, splintered, confusing back-and-forth in the chronology. Nearly all of those reviews gave the same praise I did but gave negative reviews due to the terrible editing.

And it's YOU'RE arguing with yourself, not YOUR.

reply

[–] atlstl88 10 years ago

I totally agree with you. Though I wouldn't blame the editor, but the director and screenwriters. This film could've been linear and still incredibly unique, because it's about one of the most innovative and enigmatic artist to ever exist. Thank goodness for such an amazing cast and a phenomenal performance by Chadwick Boseman. Outside of one or two moments, I didn't even mind the breaking of the 4th wall or the almost hallucinatory moments and it's actually something I think would've worked better had the film been linear. Imo, this was out of Tate Taylor, Jez and John Henry Butterworth's league and it's obvious. To be even more blunt, the movie read 'made by white people,' though I wouldn't say it was whitewashed. It's an incredibly cookie cutter script with lackluster direction and they thought they could mask those flaws by putting JB's story in shuffle mode. Just a bunch of random moments strung together, some of which we can connect the dots on.

There's also some glaring omissions and downplays in this movie. Like, how the *beep* do you virtually ignore the James Brown, full fledged Funk era!!!? How do you virtually ignore how unapologetically black he was? How do you virtually ignore his political involvement, from being at the forefront of black pride to being contradictory and downright bizarre with his endorsements and associations? Now, I understand that for a man who lived a thousand lives, you can't get everything in, but...gahd*mn, c'mon now. For a nearly two and a half hour long movie, can we get more than some cliff notes that still pretty much lead us nowhere near closer to knowing about him? Where's Danny Ray aka The Cape Man, Fred Wesley, Charles Bobbit, Joe Tex, and Al Sharpton to name a few? Why is Yvonne Fair introduced in a way that makes her seem significant to the rest of the story, only for her to disappear into the background with no lines outside of that introduction scene? No mention of the fact that she's the mother of one of his daughters. Hell, where were his other kids? Why does Marva Whitney show up only to appear as one of his arm pieces? Why are there no mentions or scenes of Vicki Anderson apart of the James Brown Revue and not just the woman who falls for Bobby Byrd? Why was Teddy Brown's death glossed over when that in fact had a HUGE impact on James Brown? Where the crap was his 3rd wife? I mean, this movie could've been SO much better, they had the material. It could've been way more informative for both JB fans and those who only know of him. I still hope that Chadwick gets some award recognition for this role, because he obviously worked his behind off. If not, I hope his career really takes off and works with the quality directors and writers his talent deserves.

reply

[–] dan6pitcher 10 years ago

I agree with everything you said.
I can't remember, did they even say "I'm black and I'm proud"? Then again, it was like "The Help" in that it was a black themed film targeted towards liberal white people.

reply

[–] atlstl88 10 years ago

Remember when he has the short natural hair, performing with all the kids in the recording studio? He's performing Say It Loud. You don't remember because they don't come close to showing how impactful that song was. They don't show exactly why he knew he had to make that song. Calling somebody black before that song was an insult. That song was the theme of an era.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dan6pitcher 10 years ago

I recall that scene, but I don't recall them actually saying the "I'm black and I'm proud" line...I do remember "Say it loud" though.

It was just weird editing and direction choices that marred this otherwise brilliant biopic.

In some ways, the movie was more like a mix-tape than anything.

reply

[–] Kelea7 9 years ago

I totally agree with you. Though I wouldn't blame the editor, but the director and screenwriters. This film could've been linear and still incredibly unique, because it's about one of the most innovative and enigmatic artist to ever exist. Thank goodness for such an amazing cast and a phenomenal performance by Chadwick Boseman. Outside of one or two moments, I didn't even mind the breaking of the 4th wall or the almost hallucinatory moments and it's actually something I think would've worked better had the film been linear.(Yup) Imo, this was out of Tate Taylor, Jez and John Henry Butterworth's league and it's obvious.() To be even more blunt, the movie read 'made by white people,' though I wouldn't say it was whitewashed. It's an incredibly cookie cutter script with lackluster direction and they thought they could mask those flaws by putting JB's story in shuffle mode. Just a bunch of random moments strung together, some of which we can connect the dots on. (Exactly!)

There's also some glaring omissions and downplays in this movie. Like, how the *beep* do you virtually ignore the James Brown, full fledged Funk era!!!? How do you virtually ignore how unapologetically black he was? How do you virtually ignore his political involvement, from being at the forefront of black pride to being contradictory and downright bizarre with his endorsements and associations? Now, I understand that for a man who lived a thousand lives, you can't get everything in, but...gahd*mn, c'mon now. For a nearly two and a half hour long movie, can we get more than some cliff notes that still pretty much lead us nowhere near closer to knowing about him? Where's Danny Ray aka The Cape Man, Fred Wesley, Charles Bobbit, Joe Tex, and Al Sharpton to name a few? Why is Yvonne Fair introduced in a way that makes her seem significant to the rest of the story, only for her to disappear into the background with no lines outside of that introduction scene? No mention of the fact that she's the mother of one of his daughters. Hell, where were his other kids? Why does Marva Whitney show up only to appear as one of his arm pieces? Why are there no mentions or scenes of Vicki Anderson apart of the James Brown Revue and not just the woman who falls for Bobby Byrd? Why was Teddy Brown's death glossed over when that in fact had a HUGE impact on James Brown? Where the crap was his 3rd wife? I mean, this movie could've been SO much better, they had the material. It could've been way more informative for both JB fans and those who only know of him. I still hope that Chadwick gets some award recognition for this role, because he obviously worked his behind off. If not, I hope his career really takes off and works with the quality directors and writers his talent deserves.

This is a perfect assessment of how I felt.The bolded especially. I know this is a year old but just had to quote this because coming back from watching the movie that's exactly what I was wondering.

reply

[–] Pearl_Jade 10 years ago

Every biopic is the same, it's the least creative of all genres because it's based on a person's life... Showing it out of order (and breaking the 4th wall) just took away from the gravity of the film.

I do agree that a lot of biopics are formulaic, but I don't think they have to be that way or that they require a chronological narrative. I believe the film makers of Get on Up were trying to defy convention; hence they employed the techniques you listed.

But I have to agree with you on the end result: it didn't work. In the hands of these film makers, the techniques were mere gimmicks that could not disguise the fact that this was the Coles Notes version of the James Brown story. Significant events were duly touched upon but not explored enough to reveal the depth and essence of James Brown.

Brown's life was fascinating, there was no need to jump around, especially that moment from the Little Richard scene to suddenly showing the boxing scene. How did that boxing thing even start? It was just "he's talking to Little Richard, boom, now he's boxing" with no kind of context.

Well, to give the film makers some credit, there was some context. When Little Richard talks about the "white devil" who will seek to manage and monetize a black performer with talent, he tells Brown (and I'm paraphrasing) that he has to bring his own essence to the masses and to not stray from his own path. Then, looking closely at Brown, he asks a grave question, "What happened to you?" At that point, Brown's mind travels back to the night of the Battle Royal fighting match. That is what happened to him and what contributed to shaping him.

reply

[–] Kennet_24 10 years ago

I don't understand the disagreeing but I think you are right. The random time jumps took away some of the joy of the movie for me.

reply

[–] choyt19 10 years ago

Yeah. That was some 'I just got out of film school and I'm gonna kick the world's ass with what I think I know about film' stuff going on. It really undermined the movie.

------Jesus loves you, but only as a friend.------

reply

[–] Ithilfaen 10 years ago

I certainly don't mind art house dramas but the non-linear editing of the story was pointless and worse, it was ultimately detrimental to the storytelling.
It prevented an accurate portrayal of the creation of the Persona that was James Brown. He didn't just start talking to him in the 3rd person. He didn't go from musician to all-out entertainer and business man in one day. That evolution, as well as the evolution of his music, and the psychological aspect of his paranoia and increasing violence, is entirely left out of the movie and it takes something away from the story of James Brown.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[–] RCeditor 10 years ago

This style of filmmaking did not fit with the subject. James Brown was fascinating on his own-why try to be abstract? It distracted me from the storytelling. I wish that the film had concentrated more on giving the audience straightforward information instead of showing loads of symbolism.

BTW, the "Say It Loud" scene stood out to me, so it was definitely there. That was my favorite Brown song when I was a kid & so I knew immediately what they were in the process of recording (in the scene).

THE RAP CRITIC:
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/rap-critic

reply

[–] joekiddlouischama 10 years ago

I don't think that the problem was a nonlinear style per se. Indeed, I think that starting with Brown's problems in the late eighties and then working back to other points in his life, especially his brutal childhood, proved promising. Rather, the problem came in how the filmmakers adopted a nonlinear style. The flashbacks and flashforwards too often seemed random, purposeless, and disconnected, and they helped prevent the filmmakers from taking more time to reflectively build character, theme, and genuine emotion. As a result, although some of the individual scenes are commendable, they fail to 'pay off' emotionally due to the fragmented flow and the hyperactivity of the narrative style. I would draw an analogy to watching an old, 'classic' baseball or basketball game on television that has been brutally reedited for time constraints and excessively interrupted for commercials (i.e. ESPN Classic). When the most dramatic moments come, they don't fully pay off because the journey to those points has been marred.

I sense that the filmmakers were interested in the deeper, more melancholic tale of what fueled Brown's joyously anguished music, but they felt compelled to also provide the audience with a commercially appealing, energetic 'musical,' one where another dynamic performance scene is always just around the bend. Indeed, Clint Eastwood's Jersey Boys received plenty of (misguided) criticism from film critics for not being enough of a 'musical.' But the result there was a thematically and structurally cohesive film that offered a haunting, engrossing examination of a musical act's ironic melancholy, brutal disillusionment, internal alienation, and inability to escape its past. The result in Get on Up, conversely, feels contrived and superficial, like someone pasting together a bunch of 'exciting' and 'dramatic' scenes at the expense of a tonally consistent and cohesive film. I feel the same way, by the way, about the recent American Hustle.

I concur with this review of Get on Up.

http://www.avclub.com/review/get-cagey-shapeless-james-brown-biopic-20 7304

I might be a little more generous than giving the film a "D+", but not by much.

reply

[–] ianberg 10 years ago

I liked the 4th wall breaks and nonlinear structure. The impersonation of James Brown by the lead actor is superb. The best parts of the movie are the re-enactments of great James Brown performances but other scenes were too long. So around when the supporting band FINALLY decided they'd had enough of James Brown, I'd also had enough of him and I just wanted the movie to wrap up and end. But there was another half an hour left.

reply

[–] blindvias-071407 10 years ago

I loved the performance scenes too. I wish there would have been more of them.

reply

[–] goldpink23 9 years ago

I like the way Get On Up was made.ALMOST everything people in this thread have a problem with, entertained me.

reply

[–] WarpedRecord 9 years ago

Very true, though I found it only moderately entertaining. This is a patchwork of styles and storytelling, and the nonlinear approach feels contrived. More than anything, I found this film oddly disconnected from the man and the music. 6/10 stars from me.

reply