The Butler: best movie I've seen in a long time

[Quagmire]

I don't think I ever heard of this movie until it showed up on Amazon prime this week:

The Butler (2013) - IMDb

It's been criticized for some historical inaccuracies, but if you bear that in mind it's well worth a watch.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

I have Amazon Prime and so I've just started watching this movie. The event in the beginning that took place in 1926 doesn't seem much different from what one would expect in the pre-Civil War days of slavery. What was done to that family shocked me to the core, and the line: "I don't think God meant for people not to have families" stayed with me.

I'm going to watch the rest of the movie today. Thanks, @Quagmire, for mentioning it here.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Hi, again, @Quagmire. I'm about halfway through the film now -- up to the White House Kennedy years. I took a much needed "time out" (this is an intense movie -- I guess maybe I'm a sensitive soul) to read some reviews/critiques about The Butler. I saw that a lot of Conservatives and Republicans had, when the movie first came out, complained about how Ronald Reagan was portrayed in the movie. (I haven't reached the Reagan years yet in my viewing).

Whether Reagan was portrayed fairly or not, I was struck by the fact that this was the focus of these particular critics -- not the mistreatment of Black people as portrayed in the movie. I wondered whether these critics might have thought such mistreatment, too, was "historically inaccurate," or whether the depiction of injustice done to Black American citizens was of lesser importance than any possible injustice done to Reagan's memory?

 

[Quagmire]

Hi, again, @Quagmire. I'm about halfway through the film now -- up to the White House Kennedy years. I took a much needed "time out" (this is an intense movie -- I guess maybe I'm a sensitive soul)

I took a few time-outs myself. There's a lot to process there.

to read some reviews/critiques about The Butler.
I saw that a lot of Conservatives and Republicans had, when the movie first came out, complained about how Ronald Reagan was portrayed in the movie. (I haven't reached the Reagan years yet in my viewing).

Whether Reagan was portrayed fairly or not, I was struck by the fact that this was the focus of these particular critics -- not the mistreatment of Black people as portrayed in the movie. I wondered whether these critics might have thought such mistreatment, too, was "historically inaccurate," or whether the depiction of injustice done to Black American citizens was of lesser importance than any possible injustice done to Reagan's memory?

Well, to be fair it is, after all, the job of a critic to criticize.

In that sense it makes sense that they would focus on what they saw as the movies flaws.

I was actually a little surprised to see anyone complaining about the movie's treatment of Reagan.

To me his character came across as more human than I would have expected, more down to earth.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

I took a few time-outs myself. There's a lot to process there.

Well, to be fair it is, after all, the job of a critic to criticize.

In that sense it makes sense that they would focus on what they saw as the movies flaws.

I was actually a little surprised to see anyone complaining about the movie's treatment of Reagan.

To me his character came across as more human than I would have expected, more down to earth.

I've finished watching The Butler, and I've got to agree with you that Reagan was portrayed better in that movie than I had expected -- especially after having read those angrily defensive complaints from some people.

The movie mentioned Reagan's threat to veto a bill to impose sanctions on South Africa. The people who wrote the reviews I read complained about that scene, stating that Reagan only did that because he thought there were better ways to deal with South Africa's civil rights abuses, and that economic sanctions would impact hardest on the Black community in South Africa. Personally, I think that Reagan's insistence on vetoing the bill had more to do with his own stubbornness than any alternate solutions he may have had for the problem of South Africa.

The movie didn't even touch on Reagan's opposition to The Voting Rights Act. So, yes, I think that the movie did portray Reagan no worse than it might otherwise have done.

I think that Nancy Reagan came off pretty good for actually knowing the name of Cecil's wife when she invited them both to dinner. Plus, the movie depicted Reagan as being the first president to finally grant equal pay and equal opportunities to the Black staff in the White House. I loved that scene where Cecil says to the arrogant WH staff supervisor: "I told the President that you would say that. He told me to tell you to take this up with him." That was such a satisfyingly great scene, I cheered! How could anyone complain about the way Reagan was portrayed after seeing that scene? If anything, I could understand complaints that the movie was too easy on Reagan.