EveryBestPicture.com revisits this Oscar Best Picture winner
As the film begins, with its palette of warm colours and the soft sounds of that unmistakable theme, it was not long before I settled into the mood. This is no accident. The direction from Bruce Beresford, although on the surface fairly unadventurous, contains some subtle successes. This film is set in Atlanta, Georgia, in one of the 'cotton states' or ‘the deep south’. The suggestion of the accompanying heat is entirely successful, with no need for anyone to mention it or mop their brow, or even lingering shots of ceiling fans. Beresford does two things simultaneously: we (the viewer, through camera placement) are placed in the shade from the opening shot; everywhere we look the refuge of shade is available. Interiors are shot in very low, natural light, which allowed us to feel protected from the stifling heat. Combining this with the soft focus and nostalgic feel took me back to my childhood holidays in the summer heat in Spain when we would shut out the sun to keep the heat at bay. The sense of nostalgia enhanced my viewing comfort. I may never have been to the Southern States of America, but was being told 'you know what it was like, and it felt good'. Call me a sucker, but this worked. For now. The chemistry between the three principals (Jessica Tandy, Morgan Freeman and Dan Ackroyd) is pitch perfect. Although each character is heavily leaning towards stereotypes their edges were greatly softened by the depth in quality of the performances. This was a low budget picture based on an off-broadway play, the whole production cost under $8m (blockbusters typically set studios back $25m-$40m at the time) and it relied heavily on the actors, much like any three handed play would. This was Freeman’s breakthrough movie, Tandy (incidentally born not far from my home in north London) had been honing her talent as a character actor in similar roles, successfully, for years (Batteries Not Included, Coccoon and others). This was a rare chance to take the lead in a script based on a pulitzer prize winning play (1988) no less and her shoulders on that slender frame were more than ample enough to take the weight. She barely broke a sweat. The titular Miss Daisy is an elderly Jewish woman who after crashing her Cadillac pulling out of the driveway is unable to get behind the wheel again. Her son Boolie (Ackroyd) employs elderly African American chauffer, Hoke (Freeman), to drive her. Hoke’s gentle but persuasive manner wins out over her stubbornness over the course of the film and in the process barriers of race and class become less important to them. So on to the more troubling aspect- the issue of race. Miss Daisy is rich and Jewish, Hoke is African American and comparitively poor. This offers no challenge to the status quo of the American South of the 1960’s when segregation was the order of the day nor does it oppose the simplistic stereotypes of rich Jew, poor black. It is a film based on a play based on a true story, and it is not that I suggest that every film in this setting should offer up resistance, but here is where I return to the success of creating a warm nostalgic feel that is, in effect, celebrating the age. This is a concept I am very familiar with. Having had grandparents of a similar class to Miss Daisy (albeit in Spain) who had maids, a chauffer a dressmaker and other staff I recognise the relationships portrayed and the similar curt attitude taken by the employer. It never sat well with me and watching this film brought that unease back, no doubt wholly unintentionally. However, I do not think anyone else will be immune to this unease. There are a number of devices used to soften this nagging disquiet. Miss Daisy tries to rubbish Hoke’s assertion that she is rich, explaining that she has lived through poverty of the worst kind. “But you doing alright now, aintcha?” Hoke retorts. Also, in a sense, both characters would be considered to be from ethnic minorities in Georgia, where the film is set. This is emphasized by a scene in which the highway patrol question them, having racially profiled Hoke as he stood by the car apparently alone (having not yet seen Miss Daisy). After having examined their license and registration to ascertain all was in order, established that she was Jewish, and allowing them to pull away you hear one officer remark to the other “An old nigger and an old Jew woman taking off down the road together. That is one sorry sight”. This immediately elicits sympathy from the audience for Miss Daisy, despite her most endearing moments so far being her cruel but humorous wit. Finally the film’s true nature surfaces- her temple is bombed and this scene is quickly followed by Hoke recounting a tale of how he found a friend's father hanging from a tree, tying their status’ together as targets for the racial hatred that pervaded. So although there is no overt challenge to the way things were, beyond disapproval, this movie is intended as a snapshot into how in such a hostile environment there can exist personal connections which transcend the boundaries that society lays down. I must say, it is difficult to untangle the good intentions from the stereotypes in this movie (including Miss Daisy’s housekeeper being little more than a chicken eating ‘Mammy Archetype’). We learn almost nothing of the personal life of Hoke, never seeing his home, meeting his family or friends. It is a sympathetic story, but told from the white character's perspective, a perspective that apparently has no interest in finding any more out about Hoke beyond what he does for his white employers. As well made and acted as this picture is, it does not quite do enough to escape that awareness bestowed upon us over the last 30 years. Re watching it has suggested to me that we have come a fair distance if this was considered to be a film to undermine racial tensions. I believe it to be more a film to make a certain section of white American society feel better about themselves for interacting in a civilised manner with people of other races, which really should be a given. |
Previous ReviewsComing soon:Archives
February 2019
Categories
All
AuthorPablo Griffiths is a man with a passion for many things. He has recently taken an interest in writing about film, and himself in the third person. |