Der Butler

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.

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.

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.

There are, undoubtedly, scenes in Lee Daniel's The Butler that made me feel quite uncomfortable. Most certainly, many other viewers will echo similar discomfort experienced while watching this near great movie. Unfortunately, the existence of atrocities and flagrant injustices in our not too distant past doesn't mean that they should be whitewashed or airbrushed out of our collective memories! (Absolutely no pun intended here)

Don't let me give you the wrong impression about The BUTLER. In just over 2 hours until end credits, there are but a scant few minutes of images that some of us would, perhaps, just as soon forget. At the heart of this remarkable film, is a tale of a great generational divide between estranged father and first-born son; redemption, change, forgiveness, repentance and catharsis are also pivotal elements in this "Inspired by a True Story" drama painted on a historical backdrop canvass.

Although The BUTLER does highlight the tremendous progress our society has made in the past century toward fulfillment of Dr. Martin Luther King's "Dream", obviously, there is an undercurrent underscoring the fact that this area is one that involves constant self-reinvention to ensure continued improvement.

There are multiple noteworthy elements here. First, Oprah Winfrey's triumphant return to an on-screen leading role. Despite having done numerous voice-overs in recent years, BUTLER represents the end of a 15 year hiatus, when she participated in the ill-fated BELOVED. Her performance, although not quite Oscar nomination caliber, would win, without a doubt, an Academy Award for best "Billionaire Female Actor on the Planet", if such a prize existed! Accepting this role surely resulted in reduced income for Oprah in 2013. If that doesn't make her participation in this project a "Labor of Love", what would?

BUTLER is my pick for 2013 Best Ensemble Performance Golden Globe. Cast Credits give the impression of a page lifted directly from a Who's Who in Acting & Entertainment! Cuba Gooding, Jr.; Robin Williams, in a refreshing, but brief, appearance as a pensive and soft-spoken President Eisenhower; Vanessa Redgrave; Clarence Williams III; James Marsden as President Kennedy; John Cusack, as an ever brooding and duplicitous President Nixon; David Oyelowo, as the rebellious prodigal son; Terence Howard; Lenny Kravitz; Mariah Carey; Jane Fonda, who sparkled as Nancy Reagan and Alan Rickman as her careful-not-to-step-on-her-toes husband, Ronald! The only weak link, in my opinion, was Liev Schreiber as President Lyndon B. Johnson. His portrayal just did not resonate with me.

Quite frankly, despite analyzing carefully for any historical missteps, there were only a couple rather minor ones that were noticeable. About three-quarters into BUTLER, the story-line, focus and viewer interest level seemed to sputter a bit, but then, managed to get right back on track rather quickly.

The film did attempt to provide moments of comic relief from the oftentimes somber on-screen events, most of them evoking healthy laughter but a handful of them kind of fell flat. If it weren't for these few mentioned flaws, BUTLER most definitely would have been rewarded with a 10*Star* rating! When released on DVD, rest assured it will be added to my 800+ collection!

ENJOY! / DISFUTELA!!!

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!