MovieChat Forums > The Good Lie (2014) Discussion > Paternalistic, Sanctimonious, & Slightly...

Paternalistic, Sanctimonious, & Slightly Racist

posted 10 years ago by aGuiltySoul
19 replies | jump to latest

Movie trends come and go, but if there’s one thing Americans consistently love, it’s rich white women in rich white women stories who rescue poor black kids in need of love. It’s a paternalistic, sanctimonious, slightly racist genre of filmmaking that elevates white people to ‘heroic missionaries’ and makes black people childlike victims.

http://uproxx.com/filmdrunk/2014/09/good-lie-producers-will-give-out-k eys-made-by-homeless-people-to-promote-their-horrible-movie/

It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
RIP Roger Ebert

[–] dini0519 10 years ago

Naw. Youre reading too much into this. It's simply a well told story about a chapter in recent American history.

Dini

[–] aGuiltySoul 10 years ago

American history?

It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
RIP Roger Ebert

[–] gapeach1 10 years ago

Who was the rich white woman??

I didn't see anything racist in this movie.

[–] dini0519 10 years ago

Yeah why not? Recent immigration history.
Dini

[–] RoyWilliamsbeatsCoachK 10 years ago

You do realize there are several refugee organizations in America who DO HELP refugees find homes, food, living essentials, and employment in America? This happens every single day. Granted, the people who work for IRC, CCS, and other organizations are not rich. Many of them are white, and they are doing their part to make a better world for people from Somalia, Sudan, Burma, Bhutan, the DRC and other places.

I have not seen the movie, but I would hardly find the premise of a white social worker helping refugees find a better life in America "racist". I would actually find it the opposite of racist. Inviting poor vulnerable people that are coming from a terrible situation into your community and doing everything in your power to give them a chance to succeed is empowering. Calling it racist is idiotic.

[–] aGuiltySoul 10 years ago

I do know.

Read the linked article before you speak.

It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
RIP Roger Ebert

[–] LuciaJoyce 10 years ago

Wow. The article writer doesn't seem to have seen the film, and seems to base her accusation of rich white woman sanctimony on scanning the trailer. Have you seen the movie either, OP? Witherspoon doesn't play a "person in charge of international refugees," as the article alleges; nor is she rich or particularly helpful. She's doing her job, which is employment assistance. The film may gild the difficulties the Lost Boys and Girls face in their American resettlement, but it does not rob of them of their agency and volition - they're not causes to be helped, but ambitious survivors trying to reunite their family. The Witherspoon character does have a change of heart, but it's not anywhere as egregious or patronizing as Bullock in The Blind Side. Her character works more on the sidelines, if that. Anyway, I'm curious if you can offer any concrete examples from the film to support your charge of racist patronage.

[–] zooymtoo 9 years ago

Wow. The article writer doesn't seem to have seen the film, and seems to base her accusation of rich white woman sanctimony on scanning the trailer. Have you seen the movie either, OP? Witherspoon doesn't play a "person in charge of international refugees," as the article alleges; nor is she rich or particularly helpful. She's doing her job, which is employment assistance. The film may gild the difficulties the Lost Boys and Girls face in their American resettlement, but it does not rob of them of their agency and volition - they're not causes to be helped, but ambitious survivors trying to reunite their family. The Witherspoon character does have a change of heart, but it's not anywhere as egregious or patronizing as Bullock in The Blind Side. Her character works more on the sidelines, if that. Anyway, I'm curious if you can offer any concrete examples from the film to support your charge of racist patronage.

Eureka! Someone that actually saw the film and is completely logical. Thank you.

I just saw the film. Loved it!
I come on these silly boards and see thread after thread of threads about racism and various other pompous assumptions made entirely by people that likely haven't seen the film.
What is the curse we have these days of assuming we know what everything is without going to the trouble of discovering what it is?
This movie was not racist in any direction. I'm sure people might want to make it political because there are difficulties in red tape after 9/11 but I think we, in America, knows that red tape has always swallowed us up individuals.

It's really most about strength and perseverance...and perhaps a lesson for those of us that take too much for granted. Those that make snap judgements without seeing it are exactly those that should see it.

[–] LuciaJoyce 9 years ago

Exactly! It's that same culture that jumps on an NPR April Fool's joke (http://www.npr.org/2014/04/01/297690717/why-doesnt-america-read-anymor e) and starts piling on completely unsupported value judgments.

I'm glad that you saw the film unbiased and took away the same earned uplift I did. :)

Strangely, Witherspoon is getting lots of love for "Wild," but I feel like she did better, more interesting work in this movie. I'm curious to see how she'll be in "Inherent Vice." She's really having quite a year this year, isn't she?

--
I should warn you -- he's a Fourierist.

[–] eonaxes 9 years ago

I see this trend in many movies but this movie is not the same case. The Africans shown in this film were intelligent, strong willed determined people. Coming from war torn Africa ofcourse they needed some guidance on American culture but they were able to hold jobs and pay for their rent and repay their air tickets.

[–] gehenna-3 9 years ago

Well, seeing as all black people want to come to the white world and would do anything for it, it's not untrue.

[–] aGuiltySoul 9 years ago

Thanks for clearing that up, and by "that" I mean how clear it is that you're an idiot.

It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
RIP Roger Ebert

[–] shoutingagain 9 years ago

WOW, what a total imbecilic troll you are.
LEARN something will you? You're embarrassing yourself!

Can we PLEASE trade you to make room for any refugee from anywhere around the globe??

[–] shoutingagain 9 years ago

White women (over & over again)....then paternalistic...you DO know that's FATHER (male), right??? Did YOU MEAN maternalistic maybe?

OK, probably not! Sure I lost you already here.
The fact is, you have NO argument so you invent one...pull one right OUT of the air. Oh & also COPY someone elses review since you can't write your own.
Sad state of affairs.
You gotta love ppl who find fault in everything & take offense everywhere, they are losers of the highest order.

AT LEAST coordinate your assertions if you can't coordinate your mind.

[–] aGuiltySoul 9 years ago

You've really got to start to tone down your voice. Shouting only gives the impression that you have no confidence in what you're saying. But it is nice that you seem to have to have noticed at last that I clearly posted a quote from a review, to which I also offered a link. So it's strange that you continue with your ad hominem attacks.

Speak to the argument and not of the person.

It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
RIP Roger Ebert

[–] shoutingagain 9 years ago

Funny man. Trying to appear smart.
Failing on both.

First, let's get this out of the way.
You DO get that one can't actually shout in prose, do you not?

And sorry you missed the point, but let me spell it out slowly & clearly.

YOU picked a quote (and from all appearances tried to pass it off as your own initially) written by a person who doesn't know the right use or meaning of the word "paternalistic".
YOU.
YOU picked it out & cited it.

IS that clear enough?
Sorry if you find it objectionable speaking to the "person" here but it's what you did....show us the PERSON (YOU) are & your judgment.
Tells me everything I need to know.

And for the record, I do not attack but read where you called others idiots (in this thread. Ppl, who from my reading, didn't seem even SLIGHTLY so. And even if you failed to agree with them, that is uncalled for & rude).
So honestly, given the absolute the irony of your accusations, found it TOO hard to pass up commenting on.

Maybe just proof what you copy first before calling others out as idiots. I assure you THAT will serve you well.
Plus it's always good to play nice! I've found others listen better this way & keep an open mind.

So watch when/who you attack, there are those noticing out here. Those like me.
And in all likelihood you'll be called out on yourself.
Yes, MUCH better to speak to the argument than the person but not what you've started with others & it frankly needs addressing (redressing).

[–] spasek 9 years ago

Heather Dockray doesn't get it, and obviously, neither do you. You just have to love people who try to make something out of nothing; put some fear and anger where there was none to begin with just so that you have something to "fight" against.

Watch and appreciate the film for what it was. I daresay that its message is about helping each other and has nothing to do with race. But, if that is your perspective, then so be it. It's sad and pathetic, but it's yours.

Also, learn to speak for yourself rather than regurgitate what someone else says. Are you a person or a parrot?

Hopefully, some day, you will learn how to change your perspective to see with the eyes of love rather than fear.

[–] chas437 9 years ago

I think OP meant patronizing and condescending. That fits better.

[–] msheamel 8 years ago

Must be gratifying posting from your cushy ethnocentric throne. Walk a mile in ANYONE else's shoes and get some global perspective