Green Book (4/5 Stars)

There alot of interracial buddy movies out there. The genre was essentially born with In the Heat of the Night in 1968, the first interracial buddy cop movie, which seemed to spawn a different iteration every couple of years (a few examples 48 Hours, Lethal Weapon, Rush Hour). Green Book belongs with the best of them and in a way is more than that. Other interracial buddy movies focus only on the race aspect of the buddy relationship. Green Book does more than that. The characters here are also separated by class and just as importantly, if not more so, their ideas about individualism.

The plot is disarmingly simple. It is based on a true story that took place within the space of a few months in the early 1960s. The Dr. Don Shirley, the celebrated concern pianist, is embarking on a cross-country tour, including the deep south, and has hired Tony "Lip" Vallalonga as his driver/bodyguard. Dr. Don Shirley is black and Tony "Lip" is white. But as I said, there's more. Dr. Don Shirley is upper class. Tony "Lip" is working class. And most importantly Dr. Shirley is an individual. He has eclectic tastes, has no family or close friends, and is not simply a good piano player but one of the best. Tony "Lip" on the other hand, is Italian. He's from the Bronx.

They mostly get along. Tony "Lip" may harbor basic 1960s prejudice against black people, but does not seem to apply them to Dr. Shirley, who has obvious class and money and will pay him a good wage for his work. Dr. Shirley appreciates the usefulness of Tony's skills and personality attributes even though he clearly does not want them for himself. They travel through the segregated south, but the hardships that prevail upon them there are never more interesting than how these two interact with each other. Most of it pretty funny in an odd couple kind of way, Tony "Lip" being the sloppy easy-going guy and Dr. Shirley being the neat uptight man. Tony "Lip" introduces Dr. Shirley to Kentucky Fried Chicken. Dr. Shirley helps Tony "Lip" with the letters he writes to his wife. By the time the movie was ending and Tony "Lip" was hurrying back to make Christmas dinner with his family, I was happily being reminded of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. This is an enjoyable movie. Is it one of the best of the year? (It has been nominated for Best Picture). I don't think so. I think it lacks the sort of ambition a Best Picture nominee should have. But I'm not unhappy with its presence.

What is a racial stereotype? It is a belief about the typical attributes of a type of people. If you would agree that there is such a thing as a type of people, than it follows that there exist racial stereotypes about them that are true. At one point in this movie, Tony "Lip" offers some fried chicken to Dr. Shirley. Dr. Shirley refuses it. What's the problem, says Tony, you people are suppposed to like fried chicken. Dr. Shirely takes offense. What's the problem, says Tony, if someone told me all guineas like spaghetti and meatballs, I wouldn't get offended. Now, we all know why Dr. Shirley would get offended. Perhaps a better question then is why Tony "Lip" wouldn't get offended. The answer is not a question of race, it is a question of individualism. Let's put it this way: The racial stereotype that black people like fried chicken is not offensive to Dr. Shirley because he believes a liking of fried chicken is inherently bad. It isn't. Nobody thinks that. Dr. Shirley is offended because he is being automatically placed into a group based on his race, when he, as an individual, does not share those characteristics. Tony "Lipp" on the other hand does not identify as an individual, or not nearly as much. He is an Italian. He grew up and lived his entire life in one neighborhood in the Bronx. He is not offended by the idea of a person telling him Italians like spaghetti and meatballs because he does not have a problem with being grouped with Italians and having others assume Italian characterisitics about him. When told a group of stuck rich guys won't like his last name, he says, if they don't like it, they can shove it, I'll wait outside. It's only a problem to Dr. Shirley to not be accepted or allowed to be something different from Black. Tony "Lip" is content with being Italian and does not want to be anything else.

America has a long history of promoting individuals and individualism like that of Dr. Shirley. Our culture say far less about the merits of being part of a group. The pitfalls of being part of a group are well known: less room for vanity, less chance of fame, and you have to suppress certain aspects of yourself that the majority believe are not beneficial or simply don't like. But what about the benefits? Everyone in Tony "Lip" neighborhood knows and respects him. His Christmas dinners are attended by a large amount of family and friends. Whether or not he needs it, his relatives show up to provide support. Contrast this with the situation of Dr. Shirley. He receives lots of applause for being an outstanding pianist, but he has no close family, he lives alone, his best friend might be his butler. This is not a result of his race. He has chosen to put himself on a pedestal apart from other people. His concerns about racial stereotypes are not always a blow against racial prejudice, sometimes they are an exercise in vanity. He wants other people to believe he is exceptional. To the extent that he is exceptional, he deserves that consideration. But this is unrelated to whether it is okay to assume a black person likes fried chicken. If most black people like fried chicken, and liking fried chicken is not a bad thing, it isn't offensive to say or assume so. It is at least not racially offensive. Individuals may be offended for being lumped in with a group and a lot of what seems to pass as racism nowadays can fit squarely within the latter category. Not being able to vote or sit in a restaurant. That's racism. Microagressions, I'm afraid not.

This movie was directed Peter Farrelly without his brother Bobby Farrelly. There is probably a story there. The Farrelly brothers were responsible for some of the best comedies of the 1990s (Dumb and Dumber, Kingpin, There's Something About Mary), but have not been doing that great since. This is a good change of pace. 

The Founder (3/5 Stars)

This movie never really makes up its mind about what it thinks about Ray Croc, the man who franchised McDonald’s, a small family owned chain in Southern California, into a global company. Is he a hero or a villain in this story? Does he represent good things like ambition, persistence, and work ethic? Or does he represent bad things like bullying, cutting corners, and unfair dealing? Or is he half-good or half-bad? I actually think the last one may be closer to the truth, but the movie is ambiguous.

Now the creators of the movie may have felt that keeping the movie ambiguous is a way of portraying Ray Croc in a half-good/half-bad way. But saying nothing about either thing isn’t the same about saying something about both things. “The Founder” would have been a much better movie if its creators were more insistent on having more of a point of view. A much better movie with a very similar plot is David Fincher’s great movie “The Social Network.” That too told the story of a small business that grew into a giant and the collateral damage of early partners it left in its wake. That movie is superior to this one because it was explained to the audience why it was necessary that the collateral partners were pushed aside and explained why that wasn't completely fair, whereas “The Founder” never quite makes the argument that Ray Croc was wrong in how he expanded McDonald’s (he is shown maintaining a great product and giving business opportunites to many hardworking normal people) and never quite makes the argument that Ray Croc was right in how he cut out the original founders, the McDonald’s brothers (Ray Croc’s real estate deals are shown in a slippery manner and the movie blatantly shows the infamous hand shake deal that courts later said couldn’t be proved.)

The lynchpin of the whole thing was a milkshake that didn’t need a freezer. It was an insta-mix. You put it into a glass of cold water and stirred it for a couple minutes. The McDonald’s brothers (played by the perfectly cast Nick Offerman and John Carrol Lynch) balk at this even though Ray Croc and all the other franchisees prove that it will save them a lot of money. What does the movie think? Did the McDonald’s brothers have the right to stop all the other franchisees from saving money with insta-milkshakes? Are the original standards of McDonald’s sacrosanct and not worth the expansion of the franchise? This could be clearer.

Another thing mixed up in this could be clearer. Ray Croc was married to a woman who didn’t share his ambitions. The woman who came up with the Insta-milkshake became his later wife after he divorced the first one. What does the movie think about this? It kind of waffles here too. It is under the impression that the first divorce is not a good thing. But it can’t admit (because I don’t think the evidence is there) that the second marriage was a bad thing. When I watched the “Social Network,” I felt it was making an argument that the company, Facebook, and its success was important enough to warrant hurt feelings and disloyalty to members that weren’t on board with the program of making it the biggest and best thing ever. “The Founder” is in the same position, but doesn’t make the argument. I’m not entirely sure what “The Founder” thinks of McDonald’s. Does it think it should have stayed in San Bernadino? Or does it think it should have expanded across the world? This is an important question because Ray Croc was responsible for the second scenario and he could not have done it with the McDonald’s brothers as his business partners.

Ray Croc is played by Michael Keaton, one of those actors that is sort of beyond definition. He looks white-bread neutral and yet the man has played Beetlejuice, Batman, Birdman, and a police sergeant that moonlights at Bed, Bath, and Beyond and quotes TLC lyrics. He is an off-kilter surreal actor playing in a boring white man’s body. He is perfect for Ray Croc, whose weird enthusiasm and persistence, renders him borderline uncanny valley. That is he looks human but there is something not quite right. Like L. Ron Hubbard, he seems to have brainwashed himself. Early scene of him as a traveling milk-shake salesman has him alone in his hotel room listening to self-motivation records on a loop. It would be nice if the movie had an opinion about that.

The first McDonald’s in San Bernadino looks and feels like a great restaurant. In fact, it reminds me of the best fast food restaurant I’ve ever been to: In-N-Out. The menu is only burgers, fries, and soda/shakes. The quality of the food is great. The people working there are clean cut and well paid. As a mainly Southern California restaurant, the restaurant is airy and people can easily eat outside. Contrast this with your average McDonald’s today. A depressing conglomeration of colors and menu options, all of which contain substandard ingredients, and a general aura of uncleanliness confined in the commercial space of a crowded urban area (at least in NYC). Of course we don’t see what McDonald’s became in “The Founder,” and I really don’t know what the makers feel about what happened.

Welcome to Me (3/5 Stars)

Well, what is a borderline personality disorder? I concede that it is a thing because it sounds vaguely familiar to me, but I would not trust myself to describe it accurately. And I just watched an entire movie in which the main character a woman by the name of Alice Klieg (Kristin Wiig) explores all of its facets in a very public way. The very public way she does socially awkward things I suspect is part of her disorder. But in another sense she does a lot of things that utterly stupid though completely sane people are capable of as well. The distinction is important especially in a comedy because stupid people are funny but mentally ill people are not. So which of Alice Klieg’s actions fall into what camp? A better definition of what ails her would help the audience out quite a bit. As it is, the prevailing feeling in the theater is, “should we be laughing at this?”

Alice Klieg lives alone and with the TV on nonstop. She especially likes talk shows like Oprah. One day she wins the lottery, a seventy million dollar jackpot. She has a conversation with her psychotherapist (Tim Robbins) in which she explains that she will stop taking her medication and move into a casino hotel room. She also has big plans for an Oprah like talk show. She pitches the idea to a local access production channel. “I want it to be about me,” she explains, “and I want to come in on a Swan boat.” The head of the channel (James Marsden) asks for 150K per show for 100 shows. She immediately takes out her checkbook. After the meeting the other members of his production company, his brother (Wes Bentley) and two producers (Jennifer Jason Leigh and Joan Cusack), balk at the idea. But Marsden explains that they are almost broke. They either take the money or start laying people off.  So “Welcome to Me,” a show written, directed, and hosted by a crazy person is born on the local access channel in the 10am two hour time slot.

This is a very interesting premise with lots of potential as a movie but the pitfalls should be rather obvious. The main one is that making fun of a person with mental illness is not a nice thing to do. And if you don’t make fun of them, than where is the comedy going to come into play. The best example of a movie making that leap is David O. Russell’s ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ that has several characters with some sort of madness in them. But at the same time they aren’t completely defined by their madness. That is to say they are people with personalities that have disorders not just clinical manifestations of the disorder itself. This allows their behavior to be guided by choices. Choices maybe influenced by the illness sure, but choices nevertheless. The clear demarcation of where illness ends and personality begins is how the viewer knows whether to laugh at Bradley Cooper wearing a garbage bag while he is running. There is reason behind it. He wants to lose weight and the bag helps him sweat. And yes he knows he looks ridiculous but he doesn’t care because he is very excited and focused on what he is doing. The “excited” and “focused” is part of his disorder but Cooper puts on the bag ultimately for sane reasons: he wants to lose weight. His disorder doesn’t compel him to wear garbage bags while jogging for no reason. If it did, it would not be funny. It would be sad.

When Alice Klieg is shown sleeping on a bed in a sleeping bag as opposed to under the covers it is not explained why she wants to do this or even whether a borderline personality disorder would influence a person’s choice to do this. (I assumed germophobic reasons but then again I’m not sure what that has to do with bordline personality disorder). Or take the several instances in which she states that winning the lottery was not luck but due to believing in herself, an idea she got from watching Oprah. Now for all I know that could be part of the disorder. But it could also be the case that she is just a stupid person. I wish I knew because its mean to make fun of retarded people for being retarded and I’m not sure if that is what is going on here. Here is an example of an opportunity wasted: Very early on in the story we are told that Alice is off her medication. Well, okay. But what was she like when she was on medication? That would be a good clue as to what is happening with her. This is not explored by the movie.

To be clear the movie does not impinge upon the viewer any guilt from watching the proceedings. (If they were funnier perhaps they would. I am reminded a little bit of the remake of a French movie in which a group of elites host a competition to bring the biggest idiot they can find to dinner party.) The main reason is that Alice Klieg’s friends, family, and ultimately her cash-strapped employees act in good faith around her. Nobody tries to ouright steal her winnings. Sure having a TV show is an incredible waste of money but lottery money is fit to be wasted and to the production company’s credit, they try to do a competent job of realizing her vision. The TV show itself is the most interesting thing going on in this movie. Here Alice recreates dramatic scenes from her life, fake fights with her mom (an off-screen Joan Cusack) who always wins, makes and eats her favorite recipes, and even uses her past veterinary skills to neuter and spay any dogs the audience wants to bring into the studio. Something is going on in that studio and it may or may not be special but it is at least original. The reactions of the people working there are mixed. For instance Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character quits but it is not entirely clear whether she does so because she thinks the company is taking advantage of Alice or because she thinks the work is below her. Maybe both. Wes Bentley takes Alice out on a couple of dates because she asks him to. She is very intent on sleeping with him right away. Again it might be nice to know if that is the disorder working or plain horniness.

Is it possible to be cured of borderline personality disorder? The movie ends with Alice doing several things differently than she usually does in her normal routine like for instance sleeping under the covers instead of in a sleeping bag. I’m not sure what that means. As for Kristin Wiig’s performance, since I did not really understand the character, I’m not sure how to gauge its excellence. She is always interesting to watch and it speaks of good casting to put her into the main role here but her comic potential is limited by all the above. Comedy writers take note for your future endeavors: It is not enough that a person enters a room in a swan boat. That situation is not inherently funny. You have to know why they are doing it.