i'm curious to know what black viewers think of this movie, especially if you are over 35 and know something about james brown's life (and the era he grew up in).
anyone obviously can reply, but i'd love to know what black folks think of the film.
I dont argue that there are plenty of white racists, hell I am one. -sandrothenecromancer
I knew you would get a sickening reply like that. Sad
yeah, me too.
that kind of reply is a dead-giveaway as to whose opinion is to be completely disregarded. so that's fine. i'd rather see clearly who i'm dealing with.
I dont argue that there are plenty of white racists, hell I am one. -sandrothenecromancer reply share
I am black, a serious music fan, and almost 40, so I will respond to your post. I am actually glad you asked this question.
********Possible Spoilers*********
As I watched the film, I had mixed feelings about it. The acting and directing were great. Chadwick Boseman did a wonderful job as did the other actors in the film. The film looked good as well. However, I felt that it had an unfocused, poorly developed narrative. The film did not embody the tag line used to promote it, which stated that it chronicled his rise from poverty to be one of the most influential musicians of all time. I also had problems with the absence of pivotal players in JB's personal and professional lives during the time period that this film covers. I mentioned this on another thread, so I will not go into it here.
As a black person who is somewhat familiar with JB's life and who is very familiar with the era he grew up and rose to stardom in, I had some serious problems with the glossing over of the racism of the times; the lack of emphasis on the importance and influence of JB's music in the black community in the 1960s and 1970s; the absence of key black people in his life like longtime manager and confidant Charles Bobbit and bandleader Fred Wesley; and the omission of the influence that he had on rap music as well as the two greatest black performers to follow him - Michael Jackson and Prince. I also wish there could have been more focus on the music and the show, to explore his genius more. Overall, the writing felt like it presented a caricature of JB rather than a complex man.
I understand the filmmakers - screenwriters, director, and producers - of this film were white. I also understand that a lot of money was invested in this film. Therefore, the studio wants it to be profitable, which requires it to appeal to a mainstream/white audiences who it has been proven time and again are reluctant to support films with non-white casts. Therefore, I did not expect the complexity of JB's career and the role that race played in it to be explored with any real depth.
I expected the proverbial benevolent white confidant to appear. Dan Akroyd's filled the bill as JB's longtime promoter Ben Bart. This character was certainly included to connect with white audiences. Yet, Charles Bobbit, the black manager who had been by JB's side for decades and who was the last person JB called before he died doesn't even appear in the film.
According to Bart's son, JB did not even attend his father's funeral. Yet, in the film the first time we see real tears and emotion from adult JB in the film is when he is shoveling dirt on Bart's coffin. The placement of this scene, directly after the recording of JB's black pride anthem "Say It Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud" was suspect, as it seemed the purpose was to diffuse any racial unease caused by that song.
Additionally, I had an issue with the scene that preceded the recording of the song, as it made it seem as though the song was only recorded to appease black folks who were upset that Brown was going to the White House. However, the song was recorded during a pivotal time for Black people in America. Yet, the film's G-rated references to the racism of the times did not reflect the significance of the song. I also had an issue with the plane conversation where JB quipped to Bart whether he was supposed to write a check to Rap Brown and the Panthers to buy guns. That line played into irrational white fears of the black liberationists of the times and totally diminishes and denigrates what H. Rap Brown and the Panthers were doing for black people at the time. That check could have also gone to support the food and medical programs the Panthers ran. Glossing over the oppressive and ubiquitous nature of racism and racial upheaval during that era diminishes the impact it had on JB and the black community. The film did not have to be a film about racism, but to minimize it is careless at best.
Another issue I had was with the lack of tenderness or affection in JB's romantic relationships. White filmmakers seem almost incapable of showing true love and affection between black couples. They are either fighting or having sex, but no true affection is shown. We know James was abusive, but he had to show some tenderness at some point. For example, Velma, his first wife, stayed a friend and confidant throughout his life. Given that they met at church before real fame hit, I suspect there was probably a true love and depth to this relationship on some level, but we did not see it. His second wife DeeDee, Jill Scott's character appears in the film for sexing and hitting. Again, it would not have taken much to show some actual love in a black relationship.
Finally, again in an attempt to play up the mainstream crossover appeal of JB, I feel that the film missed an opportunity to highlight just how influential his music and he were in the black community. In one way or another the film could have touched on the political nature of some of his songs (it wasn't all about getting it on the good foot or being a sex machine); the impact of the Blaxploitation soundtracks, especially Black Cesar; the African concerts - particularly for the Rumble in Jungle; and the humongous influence on early rap. In a time where black people did not have many voices, JB was that voice. He took chances with his life and career to be that voice, regardless of what he became later in life. Although to the masses he was a great performer, during the 1960s and 1970s, he was a central figure in black America for more than just his music and dance moves. I think the film failed to show this.
by bellaalma ยป Sun Aug 3 2014 20:21:25 IMDb member since September 2001
I am black, a serious music fan, and almost 40, so I will respond to your post. I am actually glad you asked this question.
I won't do either you or this thread the injustice of quoting your post entirely. I'll simply say, Hear, Hear!!!
To that, I'd also like to add that while I applaud Mick Jagger's backing, the well-documented. amping-up of MJ's performance as frontman to the Stones (mimicking JB's moves, as best he could after having to follow his act to a ravenously worked-up audience!) was also conveniently missing.
Like you, the title choice was a bit lost on me and I think what we saw instead was JB, successfully reinventing himself and the genre as the decades flew by.
I think also the sheer prolific nature of his recording effort and distribution was not played-up as it should have been. I recall 45's being released the same week, perhaps stepping on sales of the prior 45 or forcing the buyer into a collect-all-three type stance.
I wonder if there exists a Guinness Book of World Records entry for most singles released in the shortest amount of time?
Then finally, I don't know if he actually talked like that, but hearing James Brown repeatedly refer to himself in the 3rd person was annoying. It seemed like the audience was being reminded who the actor was portraying.
Again, I don't know, maybe that's the way JB spoke in reference to himself. if true, it would have been nice to know why. Did he perceive himself as a product or an image? You know, that sort of thing.
"If people like you don't learn from what happened to people like me..." -Professor Rohl
reply share
I agree with you on most points, although I don't think the white characters are thrown in just to give white audiences people to identify with. Clearly, most of the white characters in the film are not very likeable, except perhaps for the Dan Akroyd character (although he, too, is a stereotype). I think the idea was to show Brown as someone pitted against "The White Devil" and how he, like all successful black artists of the time, had to make his own path in a business dominated by the white man. I don't think any white person watching this movie is going to identify with those characters. If anything, they are going to be thinking: What buffoons.
The fact that Dan Ackroyd's character, Bart, is softened somewhat may have more to do with the fact that he shares something in common with Brown as being someone from a historically persecuted people-Jews. The bond is understated, but very much implied. They often butt heads, but in the end, he becomes one of the few non-blacks that Brown actually respects (in the movie, at least). Maybe that is what you mean by giving white movie goers a character to "conect" to?
My issue, however, is that whites and blacks both are stereotyped throughout the entire film. I find this to be often the case when black films are written and directed by white people. It's like they have this idea of how black people are supposed to react to every situation (replete with wide-eyed gestures that come straight out of the minstrel show school of directing) and a kind of romanticized view of blacks in general. (Like The Color Purple, a film also written and directed by whites) it often feels like "Song of the South" and that the characters should break into "Zippity Doo Da" at any moment.
I enjoyed the film overall-it was very entertaining-but I did find the caricatures and often broad stereotyping of both blacks AND whites to be somewhat annoying. It's like they are so paper thin that any intelligent movie goer can see right through them. They don't resonate because they don't feel real, even as products of their time and place.
I understand the purpose was to clearly establish "Us" against "Them" but sometimes I just wish they could come up with more original and fresh ways to get that point across.
On the plus side, I loved the scene where James Brown leaves Bart rambling aimlessly outside the diner while he tunes him out, goes inside and gets the food while going off on his whole soliloquy about how the business is actually run. That was ingenious!
I agree with you on most points, although I don't think the white characters are thrown in just to give white audiences people to identify with. Clearly, most of the white characters in the film are not very likeable, except perhaps for the Dan Akroyd character (although he, too, is a stereotype). I think the idea was to show Brown as someone pitted against "The White Devil" and how he, like all successful black artists of the time, had to make his own path in a business dominated by the white man. I don't think any white person watching this movie is going to identify with those characters. If anything, they are going to be thinking: What buffoons.
The fact that Dan Ackroyd's character, Bart, is softened somewhat may have more to do with the fact that he shares something in common with Brown as being someone from a historically persecuted people-Jews. The bond is understated, but very much implied. They often butt heads, but in the end, he becomes one of the few non-blacks that Brown actually respects (in the movie, at least). Maybe that is what you mean by giving white movie goers a character to "conect" to?
My issue, however, is that whites and blacks both are stereotyped throughout the entire film. I find this to be often the case when black films are written and directed by white people. It's like they have this idea of how black people are supposed to react to every situation (replete with wide-eyed gestures that come straight out of the minstrel show school of directing) and a kind of romanticized view of blacks in general. (Like The Color Purple, a film also written and directed by whites) it often feels like "Song of the South" and that the characters should break into "Zippity Doo Da" at any moment.
I enjoyed the film overall-it was very entertaining-but I did find the caricatures and often broad stereotyping of both blacks AND whites to be somewhat annoying. It's like they are so paper thin that any intelligent movie goer can see right through them. They don't resonate because they don't feel real, even as products of their time and place.
I understand the purpose was to clearly establish "Us" against "Them" but sometimes I just wish they could come up with more original and fresh ways to get that point across.
On the plus side, I loved the scene where James Brown leaves Bart rambling aimlessly outside the diner while he tunes him out, goes inside and gets the food while going off on his whole soliloquy about how the business is actually run. That was ingenious!
How were the whites not likeable?
Eating my prunes and watching that ass!
reply share
I'm not even near 35, but I'm no dummy either. You hit the nail right on the head. I knew when I saw the previews and the commercials that this movie, especially with these filmmakers (Tate Taylor, Mick Jagger, etc.) on what was probably a low budget, was not only going to be unsatisfactory to people of tastes like ours but was not a good idea to start with. I don't know how true this is but, I heard that Spike Lee was supposed to be involved with this film as well as 42. Somehow, "the powers that be" have pitted many audiences against him and he's always been very vocal about it.
Jenny: Why are you so good to me? Forrest: You're my girl!
[[b]b]I'm a HUGE JB fan and I know a LOT about him cuz I read his book. there's lots of facts in the film that were changed, inaccurate or ignored. Chadwick did an excellent job. He nailed JB's swagger, attitude, cockiness, etc. His performance was a 10. the depiction of JB's life was 5. Bobby Byrd and James were both in prison and they didn't meet in the way portrayed in the film. The original 60s band did not quit before a recording session. They actually quit before a concert gig in 1970. The concert scene in Paris was supposed to be in '71 and yet JB had a perm in the scene and in the actual concert he had an afro. The infamous perm didn't come til 1973. JB and Bobby Byrd was shown as not seeing each other for 20 years after James's son passing. Not true. James came to Bobby and asked him to return in the early 80s. He briefly toured with Brown during that period only to leave again. A brief clip was shown of Brown recording Mother Popcorn in the studio then Byrd comes and tells the band that Dr. King passed. Popcorn came out in '69. James by that point had natural hair and King passed in '68 so that was inaccurate. I didn't like the fact that 1973-86 was ignored. so many key points in his career wasn't touched upon. It would've been a better 2 part HBO movie then a theatrical release. However Chadwick is clearly the winner of this film and he deserves whatever accolades come from this performance.
This is a great informative post! Thank you for imparting your knowledge. I enjoyed the film but recognized it missed a lot. I didn't know a lot of the details you list.
"If it doesn't make sense, it's not true." -- Judge Judy
Kwapoku2000, thanks for your post. I found it quite informative. I totally agree about the glaring omission of the time period you identified. That period was huge in cementing the JB legacy.
A pretty good movie, but as others as said a truly great JB biopic would have delved deeper into his life.
I am 24 and do not know everything about Brown, but my parents were youngsters when he was a superstar and followed his life and always used to (still do) talk about his persona and the events of his life. I also was always interested in Brown so I do know a little about him that isn't connected to the music.
Loved Boseman's performance though. He should be getting more nominations.