MovieChat Forums > Our Kind of Traitor (2016) Discussion > Is the Couple Bi-Racial in the Book?

Is the Couple Bi-Racial in the Book?

posted 8 years ago by hilaryjrp
10 replies | jump to latest

This film had the potential to be so good. I haven't checked the budget, but it must have been astronomical. I rented it for two reasons: first, Damian Lewis; second, John Le Carre. But only Stellan Skarsgaard didn't phone in his performance. He saved the movie.

The most jarringly bad acting was Naomie Harris. Dear God, this woman cannot act. The gratuitous, 80's-style, offensive opening scene of her and McGregor was also racist--casting a black woman in a role only to have her stark naked in her first scene. Either the actress was too offended by being objectified to seem more than sullen for the rest of the movie, or she just can't act, period.

But Damian Lewis, who I'll watch in nearly anything, was definitely not invested in the film any more than Harris. I disagree that Ewan McGregor was the problem. He played the same bland Everyman in The Ghost Writer, and maybe he's just a bland guy. The casting director or the director or *someone* should have realized that he needs passionate actors to work with. Pierce Brosnan played Stellan Skarsgaard's lumbering oaf character in The Ghost Writer; McGregor's scenes with both were believable.

If the novel didn't have a bi-racial couple, forcing a rewrite did not help at all.

[–] yurenchu 8 years ago

If the novel didn't have a bi-racial couple, forcing a rewrite did not help at all.

What rewrite? In what way did the color of her skin affect the plot? (or are you asking about his color of skin?) 

Maybe Damian Lewis' character had brown eyes in the book; maybe that "forced" rewrite didn't help the movie at all either... 
Maybe Damian Lewis' horn-rimmed glasses were black instead of brown in the book; maybe that's the "forced" rewrite that ruined the movie.

______
Keiko Matsui & Carl Anderson - "A Drop of Water"
http://youtu.be/kPUENUUuqSk

[–] hilaryjrp 8 years ago

I imagine you're fishing for some compliment about your astute political correctness and my stupidity. Keep waiting.

You star in a film you were chosen to act in because of your race, a film that opens with you stark naked, and then come back and tell IMDB the (potential) change of race wasn't offensive as all hell.

Perhaps your astuteness doesn't extend so far as to see that my post ended with a question mark. Or better yet: see the movie.

I realize "Sherlock" is still far in the distance. You can rent or stream "Our Kind of Traitor" today. Today, even! How's that?

[–] TxMike 7 years ago

You observations are beyond stupid. They are both British, they represent the typical British professional couple, whether their skin shades are exactly the same has no relevance and the fact that you think it does just shows your bigotry.

..*.. TxMike ..*..

[–] hilaryjrp 7 years ago

Oh really? Despising a director that strips a black actress naked and frontally nude in her first scene is proof of my racism. Today, "TxMike," in the U.S., I tell you in all sincerity to go pleasure yourself. I suspect you require lots and lots of it.

[–] nevaxa 7 years ago

You are right. They should never have paired a Scotsman with an English woman

[–] hilaryjrp 7 years ago

Pas du tout, nul. Mais on aurait du montrer cul et couilles ecossais. Fraternite, egalite, yadda yadda.

[–] joegerardi-1 7 years ago

How was her scene "gratuitous, 80's-style, offensive"?

Because she was nude?

So the hell what? Are you a Quaker or something? I find it much more refreshing than all these scenes where people are having sex while the woman is still wearing a bra, for no other reason than because she won't expose her breasts.

And guess what? In England, they would think of her British first, black second. One of the few things I prefer in the UK to America: none of the hyphenated-British, hyphenated-American crap: people are British, period. You never read that they're Scots-British, or Irish-British, or Welsh-British, etc.: they're simply British. (Or Scots, or Irish, or Welsh.)

You don't like her acting, fine: that's your prerogative; but don't knock her just because she happened to bare her ta-tas for a scene.

..Joe

[–] hilaryjrp 7 years ago

Born yesterday, my son. Born yesterday if you think 99.9% of this POS's audience will not regard this actress as first, a black woman, and second, someone who speaks with a British accent. Of course if you got into 80's full frontal female-only nudity-for-nudity's sake, you're a bit long in the tooth, "British" or otherwise.

[–] ig7 7 years ago

This rating review confirms my recollection that there was only full frontal nudity by a lead male actor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxXO5cw9t1A&feature=youtu.be&t=3m35s

I rated the movie poorly mainly due to the screenplay. I saw nothing wrong with the casting or acting. Barring Skarsgaard, all appeared competent but unexceptional.

[–] hilaryjrp 7 years ago

I listened to that review, didn't read the comments, and therefore don't know the reviewer's intended audience. But she is wrong; within the sex scene's opening minute--the start of the film's main narrative--the director exhibits every angle of the actress' nude body, save something that would ensure a NR rating in the U.S.

Repulsive tone, horrific acting (except Skarsgaard), not to mention the waste of millions of dollars. Travel porn that gets off to a great start by stripping a woman of color.
F*V*ck that.