The Butler

I'll start by stating that I'm a 62 year old white male. I did not grow up in the South - but I did live for a year in Louisiana in the early 70's. I lived through every news event that was portrayed in the movie - that is, I saw and read about them in the actual news when these things happened. Many posters on the boards say that the movie is inaccurate. Then they go on to say things like: His name was changed, he didn't have 2 sons, he didn't look anything like Forest Whitaker, Nixon was miscast, etc. True, the details of The Butler's family life have been dramatized. That is called movie making. The movie was historically accurate in every important way. I don't say that every single detail was true, nor am I saying the portrayal of these historical events was 100% exactly as portrayed. But it is far more accurate (and important) than your average popcorn POS that pervades the theaters these days. I want to state that I have rarely, if ever, been as emotionally affected by any movie. It is brilliant, provocative, artistic, and has a social purpose. Like it or not, persons of African descent have been victimized, downtrodden, brutalized, persecuted, tortured, lynched, raped, and murdered - and only because of their skin color. HOORAY to Lee Daniels for making this movie! Hooray to Forest for being a sensitive, intelligent, highly gifted actor. Hooray to Oprah, whose performance is beyond stellar. Hooray to anyone involved with this movie. Not to say that ALL movies have to take you to the places that this movie does. I guess there is a place for Pacific Rim and Wolverine. So if you think that movies have no business delving into our racist and brutal history, then see one of those movies. But to say that this movie is irrelevant or inaccurate - well, as I said I lived through it all. It is not. What it is, is an exceptional, mature movie for those that want a little more than monsters (the fictional kind). My wife and I went through a whole packet of tissues - we were blubbering like fools. BRAVO!!!!! 9 (rather than 10) stars only because the 10 star reviews are often discounted as over- the-top hero worship. But if Ironman, The Avengers, etc are 10 stars (and I liked those), this movie rates 100 stars - because it is 10X better, more important, more relevant, and more thought provoking.

This film is about the life of a White House butler (Forrest Whitaker) from the Eisenhower era through the Reagan era. During this time, lots of changes occur in America--particularly in regard to civil rights. This is seen in snippets as well as its effect on the butler's family.

"The Butler" made a lot of money and a lot of folks enjoyed it--so it was clearly successful. However, as I watched the film, I kept thinking how much better it all could have been had it been a mini-series. After all, about 25 years pass in the film and a HUGE amount of important history transpire....and it's all crammed into only a little more than two hours. As a result, it seems a bit episodic and disconnected--plus a couple presidents weren't even mentioned. The characters, at times, seemed a bit one-dimensional. Plus, an infusion of energy sure would have been appreciated. However, overall, it IS worth seeing but also could have been better. My guess is that some of these factors might be why this odds-on favorite for the Oscars eventually ended up being skunked. Good but not great. For a more detailed look at much of this same material, try watching the great 9-hour mini-series "Backstairs at the White House" from 1979.

By the way, I do think this film SHOULD have received an award. So, I am awarding it the 2014 Planktonrules Award for the stupidest casting of US presidents. Who thought having John Cusack playing Nixon made any sense at all? It was so badly miscast that it made Robin Williams as Eisenhower seem almost plausible!

There is a bit of great acting in this vaguely historic film, but Director Lee Daniels uses so much made-up and absurd pseudo-history that the story trips over his heavy-handed political lessons. Why is Lee Daniels' name above the title and who gave him this much license to re-write history after only one other film we've heard of?

That said, Forest Whitaker is compelling as the lead in this story about a White House butler that had an amazing life, but it is 90% made up. While there was a butler who served many presidents, the screenplay is actually fiction. While somewhat entertaining, these comical characterizations of U.S. presidents often feel like a made for TV, kids history channel special.

Oprah plays his wife and there are a dozen or so entertaining cameos with some unique acting choices. The cameos kept it interesting even when the story of The Butler dragged on.

If Lee Daniels had let go of the politics and heavy-handed directing, this pseudo-history lesson may have earned an Oscar nomination for Forest. But, in the end, you can see why the Academy cannot reward this artificial and revisionist history tale. With this much effort to tell us a 60 year history lesson, I just wish we knew if more of it were true. Instead, it's a mixed bag. 7/10.

A great and talented cast is largely thrown away on a script that starts and stops relentlessly. As one who has lived through all the historical periods portrayed, I was regrettably bored by large segments of the narrative, which seemed didactic in the extreme. That is not to diminish its important social and cultural significance to a younger audience, only that I personally found all the Presidents as played much smaller than in life than I remember them. Robin Williams as Eisenhower and Alan Rickman as Reagan seemed oddly miscast, though John Cusack as Nixon caught the essence of the man nicely. The parts showing home life among the main characters was a highlight, however.

In short, a good but not great film, perhaps better with fewer intrusive star-studded cameos and less overt moralizing.

The Butler was a serious disappointment, and it had two main problems. #1: The casting. Casting big-name actors in the role of the presidents or other minor parts was one of the biggest faults of the film. In this movie, there was never Dwight Eisenhower or Nancy Reagan on screen, it was always Robin Williams or Jane Fonda playing Dwight Eisenhower or Jane Fonda. This was especially a problem since all of these roles consisted of a combined two minutes or less. It was the same case with James Marsden, John Cusak, Alan Rickman, Terrence Howard, Liev Schreiber, Mariah Carey, etc. #2: The first point can be classified in this one as well: Throughout the film it never felt like you were in the life of Cecil Gaines, the entire time it felt like I was watching a movie. Beginning with all the big-name actors, down the directing. Every single scene you could see the directors intention with that scene - this scene I'm supposed to laugh, this scene I'm supposed to cry, I'm supposed to like this character, I'm supposed to like this president because I'm supposed to laugh in this scene where he's sitting on the toilet asking for prune juice. I never felt like I was allowed to make decisions for myself. I really wanted to like this movie because of the great story that was in it, but it was very poorly done.