MovieChat Forums > Things We Lost in the Fire (2007) Discussion > Why Do You Think Things We Lost In A Fir...

Why Do You Think Things We Lost In A Fire Bombed?


Halle Berry's two recent interracial dramas Monster's Ball & Things We Lost In A Fire have opposite results. Monster's Ball obviously was successful and Berry won an Oscar. However, many people have criticized Berry for promoting racist stereotypes against black female sexuality in the film. Meanwhile, Things We Lost In A Fire received good reviews yet bombed and there was no intense sex scene in that film. Things We Lost In the Fire did not make race a focal point although it is an obvious theme in the movie.

reply

People like to be 'told' what they should think about, so if it's a film with an explicit racial context (like "Monsters Ball") they like to know it's coming; whereas with a film like TWLITF, if it isn't directly addressed then they aren't sure what to make of it...

Plus, sex is always a big talking point - even if only for publicity's sake - so people are more likely to be curious about a film containing that kind of content than one without it!

The question should not be: 'Why have an interracial relationship'?; The question should be: why not?! Just because it features doesn't mean it has to be focused on.






I've been in love! Just 'cos I've never been to Zimbabwe to buy someone a cake!

reply

i cant say i saw this promoted much i only saw it AFTER it came out on DVD

~You shut the hell up, Jackie-Boy. You're dead. I'm just imagining this, so shut the hell up~

reply

@venus


I saw MONSTER'S BALL, and frankly, Berry didn't promote any racist stereotypes against black female sexuality in the film. What it was, was that it's rare to see an interracial sex scene that is so raw and real like the one in that film--It takes some REAL guts for any actor/actresses to put themselves out there like that for a heavily emotional sexual scene, and apparently a lot of people couldn't handle seeing that. Ironically, if MB was a European film, nobody would even make a big deal about it like that. THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE (I love that title--so poetic)for some wack-a$$ reason, never got the promotion it should have gotten, even though I did see Berry and Del Toro being interviewed about on Oprah when it came out, and I think it got some decent reviews. Plus, it was nice to see Berry, whom I've always liked as an actress (because, unlike some haters claim, the woman CAN act her behind off, once she gets a role that she can sink her teeth into--check out LOSING ISAIAH, INTRODUCING DOROTHY DANDRIDGE, THE RICH MAN'S WIFE, and THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE,of course).

I thought it was interesting how the couple didn't get together in this picture---I couldn't help but wonder if they were both white would they have gotten around to kickin' it sooner or later---wonder why the director--or screenwriter--made that choice. It would have been refreshing to see an interracial couple trying to help each other in the situation they were in as both friends and lovers.

reply

You are looking at this in the wrong context, there are so few black male leads in Hollywood that she basically has no other choice. The lack of black male handsome leads is the real problem and I am not sure of why. The same can be said of oriental men as they are even more scarce. This is perhaps due to film makers feeling that they are not very marketable and since most times films are made with one eye on the dollar and the other on the pulse of the viewing public. The lack of both of these male leads produces a lot of inter-racial movies and television.

Almost all rom-coms are same race couples, but when it comes two any other genre, that is where you get the inter-racial stuff.

There are many Hollywood actresses that won't do inter-racial stuff but we hear of none of this. The good one's as well as for true veterans it is not a problem, such actresses as Charlotte Rampling, Julian Moore, Isabel Hupert, they do it for the reality it brings.

reply

I liked the movie and the acting, but really could have used less Halle Berry melodramatics (e.g., taking out her hot and cold affection and aggression on Jerry, supposedly dealing with grief, but detracting from her character) and more flashback scenes (which I found to be a little jerky, since I had to be careful to distinguish between time periods), or more family conversations with Jerry contributing, albeit in a quiet way. Jerry's bonding with the kids was good, but a little rushed; his new acquaintanceship with Howard and the possibility of a new job was worth exploring more deeply. Kelly? I wasn't quite sure where that was leading (maybe that was the point), but know that there was probably more to learn or if we had more opportunity to explore that as well.

The loose threads and frayed endings made the film seem incomplete. Halle Berry would have served the film better if she were a supporting actress rather than a co-star (less is more), giving the film a greater foundation of supporting cast members; whereas John Carroll Lynch's role could have been beefed-up a bit for the same reason (sometimes more is more). As supporting cast members, both could have really shined alongside Benicio del Toro, who wowed me and also proved that I must work on personal humility after realizing that Jerry had previously been a 'good lawyer' and not just a stereotypical heroin addict, making his jump to mortgage broker more convincing.

reply