MovieChat Forums > Miles Ahead (2016) Discussion > Judging by the trailer, looks like a com...

Judging by the trailer, looks like a complete travesty


Just watched the trailer. Well, based on what I've seen there, it looks like they've totally f@@ked the dog on this one. And I was actually quite hopeful we would get a good movie about Miles Davis. Correction: I kind of always suspected they'd f@@k it up, but you always live in hope, right?

First of all, there's just no reason for Miles to be holding a gun at any point in this movie. When I saw the scenes of Miles waving a gun around, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. So Miles was some kind of gangster was he? Yes, Miles was a badass and he was known to punch people on occasion and so on. But never at any point in his life was he fascinated with guns or go around acting the fool holding people up or waving guns at them. Just ridiculous.

Second of all, who is this fictional white Rolling Stone reporter portrayed by Ewan McGregor? Now call me Mr. Cynical here, but it's not hard for me to guess why this character has been written into the film. They need to give general (i.e. white) audiences a character to identify with, because a strong, controversial black character who says whatever he feels like (and that was Miles all over) might be a bit scary for them. And then they can do this buddy buddy story arc, where the odd couple develop into fast friends over the course of the movie and overcome their initial differences. Just like they do in all those buddy cop movies and a bunch of other hack biopics. Oh man you can just see it. For people who've already seen the movie: amirite? Do I even need to ask?

Thirdly, a lot of footage here of Miles apparently hustling money out of folks: the record company, promoters and so on. As if he was some sort of conman. Actually, although Miles grew up in tough East St Louis, he came from one of the most well-to-do black families in the area. His background was privileged. So Miles was not some kind of ghetto "hustler" and he never experienced financial hardship during his life. He did adopt some of the mannerisms and speech of black ghetto culture, yes. As part of his persona. One of the interesting things about Miles was how he incorporated aspects of these two worlds (growing up in a then rare position of black privilege, with a strong sense of his own self worth, yet still coming into conflict with racial prejudice and adopting some of the mannerisms and slang of the racy, then "low class" world of underground jazz music). This is all part of who Miles was. Is this how he's portrayed in the movie?

Certainly, Miles had to confront unscrupulous concert promoters back in the day in order to ensure he got paid. Standard issue for jazz musicians back in the fifties, unfortunately. It's unthinkable that he would be required to do so during his comeback, when his concerts were a hot ticket and a mainstream attraction and handled by large scale concert promoters. And he certainly was never reduced to hustling money out of his record company. Miles had no problem obtaining advances from his record label(s) in general. And that's because he was considered a prestige artist and his records sold well. He was a sound bet for a record company. Always.

I just get the impression here that we are being presented with some kind of bizarre, gun toting, hustling, demented gangster version of Miles Davis, which is a total travesty of the great man and his life. I don't even understand the need for this. Anybody who has read Miles' autobiography will tell you that there's enough great material in there to make for several good movies. And Miles was always completely frank and honest about who he was. It's just not a life that needs to be dressed up to make it interesting.

Look, I'm fine with them fictionalising to a certain extent in order to make for a better flowing story and to make things more interesting and dramatic for a general audience. Of course they're gonna do that. But outright fabricating stuff that has nothing to f@@king do with Miles Davis who he was, well that's just making a mockery of the man. I think he deserves better than to be used as fodder for some f@@king hack biopic that is obviously not going to bother taking the subject matter seriously and do him any kind of justice.

On a more positive note, it sounds like Don Cheadle has got the voice right. And some of the mannerisms. He doesn't really look anything like Miles though. I suppose that can be lived with if the performance is good. I'm not even sure I want to bother watching the movie after seeing that trailer though.

reply

So Miles was not some kind of ghetto "hustler" and he never experienced financial hardship during his life
Yes, he suffered frequent financial hardships early in his life and career, primarily drug-related, which were basically subsidised by his father and from pimping women (as he details in his autobiography).
I just get the impression here that we are being presented with some kind of bizarre, gun toting, hustling, demented gangster version of Miles Davis, which is a total travesty of the great man and his life
Miles was a great artist, but he wasn't a great man. He was hugely flawed, and really quite a lousy human being in many respects.
And Miles was always completely frank and honest about who he was
Not really. Miles always put a sympathetic spin on his shortcomings.

Salter you can paint your AUssie...you are a joke - Matty1933

reply

Yes, he suffered frequent financial hardships early in his life and career, primarily drug-related, which were basically subsidised by his father and from pimping women (as he details in his autobiography).


It wasn't really all that much of a hardship. Miles didn't make all that much money in his early career, but we're talking about a relatively brief period, before he made his ascent and became the best paid guy in jazz. And as you say, he was subbed by his wealthy father. There was never a time when he was at serious risk of being incapable of supporting himself. He wasn't above pimping off women on occasion, yes. All of this stuff was decades before the period depicted in the new movie, at which time Miles had long since become a very wealthy man. Even in his five year coke binge during which time his career was almost entirely inactive, he never came close to going broke. He did not need to "hustle" to get by.

Miles was a great artist, but he wasn't a great man. He was hugely flawed, and really quite a lousy human being in many respects.


I mean "great man" in the sense of his monumental artistic accomplishments. And his status as an iconic and charismatic figure. Miles was flawed as a human being, yes. Some of his behaviour was pretty terrible at times. All of this should be in the movie. But we should not have Miles depicted as something he was not (i.e. a gun toting gangster).

Not really. Miles always put a sympathetic spin on his shortcomings.


Completely disagree there. In his autobiography Miles is unsparing and frank to the point of brutality. He does not attempt to sugar-coat any of the negative aspects of his life. He just puts it out there. Of course, to some extent, any autobiography is going to by "sympathetic" to its author, in the sense that it's their account and therefore their point of view. I'd struggle to think of many autobiographies that are as ruthlessly frank as this one though. Which is a big part of the reason why it's such a brilliant and compelling read.

reply

It's not.

reply

You've convinced me. Where can I see it?

reply

@robhiphop


Cheadle was told that he needed to put n a white actor in a main role in order for the film to get European distribution---which is ridiculous, but American distributors still have this outdated, racist belief that foreign audiences can't relate to black films without a white character to translate (i.e. "whitesplain" everything for them. Miles Davis was a pretty damn interesting and complicated character in his own right--he didn't need anyone, much less a white guy, to tell his narrative/story for him, believe me.

I have to remind you that a movie is not the trailer. The trailer only cherry-picks enough scenes from a movie to get you to want to see it. You could have saved your entire rant until after you see the actual film. Now go see the film and let us know if it's any good or not. Thank you very kindly, lol.

reply

I enjoyed it, I thought Cheadle gave a good performance and it looked beautiful but...the starskey and Hutch stuff was merely distracting. Are people not interested in Miles Davis really going to see this because it has car chases and people waving guns around...?
If there really was pressure for a 'white lead' with Box office draw (Ewan McGregor) then I'd have preferred a different film altogether, focusing on the relationship between Miles and Gil Evans...as is it fell between stools for me..

"ah have always depended upon the strangeness of kindness..."

reply

Yes you are right of course. A movie cannot properly be judged on its trailer and I would need to see the movie itself in order to have a definitive opinion on it. That said, I did clearly indicate that I was only stating my impressions of what I'd seen in the trailer. I wasn't trying to review the movie; instead I was stating what I found inaccurate and offensive about the content of the trailer.

Is it possible that I might form a different view of the complete movie? Yes of course. Although to be honest, I haven't heard or read anything that would indicate to me this movie is much interested in depicting anything insightful or truthful about Miles Davis as a man or an artist. Perhaps if the movie is judged purely as a piece of entertainment rather than a serious attempt to portray Miles' story, it might be successful. How much you're willing to accept that might depend on how familiar you are with the actual person and how much his music means to you.

You never know when you might be pleasantly surprised I guess. I'll stop speculating for now and make an effort to see the movie. Then I'll come back and say whether or not I think it's any good.

reply

Did it ever occur to you that the events this film and trailer show are metaphorical? Not every biopic film made is intended to be a literal account of the life of the subject. The lost tape, the RS reporter, the music industry, and the young trumpet playing prodigy are all symbolic during the years 1975-1979 Miles stopped playing. Even the title of this film has multiple entendres.

reply

This is exactly why you shouldn't write an 800-word movie review based on a trailer.

Yes, the trailer was 100% clichés, and almost convinced me to skip the movie. I gave it the benefit of a doubt -- I was happily surprised to see the filmmakers going for something beyond the typical biopic template.

reply

This is exactly why you shouldn't write an 800-word movie review based on a trailer.


I haven't pretended to be writing a review of the movie and stated clearly that these were merely my impressions based on the content of the trailer. I'm sorry if you feel 800 words was excessive for this kind of commentary, but that's how long it took me to say what I wanted to say.

Yes, the trailer was 100% clichés, and almost convinced me to skip the movie. I gave it the benefit of a doubt -- I was happily surprised to see the filmmakers going for something beyond the typical biopic template.


It's nice you enjoyed the movie, although I should probably point out that you haven't addressed whether or not any of my criticisms of what I'd seen are valid (i.e. that the movie - based on the trailer contents - appears to depict a character that has little to do with the actual real life Miles Davis).

Are you in a position to make this kind of call? I mean, is your knowledge of Miles Davis sufficient to make a judgement on how accurate the portrayal is? Or is this something that isn't particularly important to you?

Obviously I'm writing from the perspective of somebody who is a big fan of Miles Davis' music and knows a fair bit about his actual life and works. Somebody who is not as interested in Miles Davis might not particularly care one way or another about whether the portrayal is an accurate one, and merely care about whether or not they were entertained by the movie.

reply

You are clearly a knowledgeable fan of Miles. I would be curious to read your thoughts on the entire film rather than just the trailer. So please post after you have had the opportunity to see it in it's entirety.

reply

[deleted]

I didn't write a review of the movie nor claim that I was doing so. Sorry you weren't paying attention mate.

reply

[deleted]

"Apologizing for someone to them..."..what? What's bad form is your attempt to create a cogent, written thought.

The OP clearly wrote his impressions of this film based on the trailer. Read the headline of the OP. There is nothing inappropriate about that. I could tell from his lengthy critique that he was a fan of Miles who was not optimistic, based upon the trailer.

You really must get a life as well as some English composition courses.

reply

I shared your misgivings upon seeing the trailer and unfortunately they were generally confirmed once I'd seen the film.

If it weren't for a fully-expected top-notch performance by Cheadle and stand-up turns by the supporting cast, this would be utterly embarrassing. As it stands, it's only mildly embarrassing.

Pretty much hated the trailer, but can't say I liked the film.

It wasn't that much different.

*Danny's not here, Mrs. Torrance*

reply

Come back after you've seen the movie. Anything else is conjecture and idle speculation, both of which are hardly worth the time to enunciate.

reply

Is commenting on the content of a trailer not considered permissible these days or something?

And I would have to disagree that my comments are "conjecture and idle speculation" since I was referring to content that was actually depicted in the trailer, and is therefore also in the movie. I have not commented on anything that I haven't actually seen.

It is possible that my opinion might be revised once I have seen the movie though, yes. But that remains to be seen.

reply

...literally

reply

Absolutely! lol

reply