Lee Daniels' The Butler
Lee Daniels' The Butler
#1Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/15/13 at 11:24pm
I saw this tonight and thought it was pretty messy, though both Oprah and Whitaker gave good performances.
I was often reminded of two Broadway shows while watching The Butler: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and Caroline, Or Change.
Following the format of 1600 Penn, this film takes us from the Eisenhower administration in 1957 through the Obama administration in 2008. (The movie begins in 1926, but Whitaker doesn't begin his work in the White House until '57.)
Like the flop musical we are never given a chance to really meet any of the historical figures as the whiz by on the screen. It's on to the next before you can blink your eyes. I think all the celebrity guest stars spent more time in make up than they did shooting their scenes. And most of them are awful.
Robin Williams has some of the worst make up since Armie Hammer in J. Edgar. John Cusack looks NOTHING like Nixon and makes no attempt to sound like him either. Jane Fonda has all of two lines of dialogue as Nancy Reagan.
Caroline, Or Change comes into play because Whitaker is not one to fight for civil rights. He's too busy doing his job and trying to get through the day. His son on the other hand has crazy ideas, much like Emmie, and takes part in sit-ins, freedom bus rides, marches and even joins the Black Panthers. A lot of the film is spent with the son when the time could have been better used to deepen Whitaker's character.
The film becomes very preachy in the Obama segment. There was some line (voiceover, of course) about how Americans spend so much time looking outwards and judging things like The Holocaust, but they never look in and judge the 200 years of mistreatment towards Blacks.
The real saving grace of the movie is Oprah. My friend and I lost track at 14 different wigs as she hurtled through the decades and a multitude of different clothing styles. She boozes it up, smokes like a chimney, swears, cries, loves; in short it's a full court press of Oscar material. She pulls it off and despite all the flaws of the film I got emotional over several of her scenes near the end.
I don't think this will be the prestige juggernaut it was touted as, but then again it's always foolish to underestimate Harvey's powers of persuasion.
Gothampc
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
#2Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/15/13 at 11:39pm
Is this trying to be "Backstairs At The White House?"
Link
#2Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 12:47amOprah is a pretentious bore. I will skip this latest over-the-top film by Daniels. His stunt casting and lurid approach to films make Douglas Sirk's 1950s ripe melodramas seem tame.
#3Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 4:47amThere is a group boycotting it because of Fonda's involvement. Shocking. Or not.
#4Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 5:06am
She's an ACTRESS.
It's an ACTING ROLE.
dramamama611
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/4/07
#5Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 8:54amBoycotting Fonda? In this day and age? Really? That made me laugh.
#6Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 8:57amThe fact that Lee Daniels' name is in the title discourages me from seeing this.
#7Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 8:58am
Yep, dramamama! There are some conservative groups who are angry about her involvement and especially upset that she is playing Nancy Reagan.
I don't know Oprah personally so I can't speak to whether or not she's a pretentious bore, but she's hardly boring in the movie. She's great actually.
ETA- Madbrian, his name had to be in the title as they were being sued because "The Butler" was already a copyrighted movie title. It was too late to create a new title so "Lee Daniels'" was added to appease the lawsuit.
(The same thing happened when "Dracula" became "Bram Stoker's Dracula" years ago.)
#8Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 9:36am
I wonder why Lee Daniels gets his name in the title like that.
It's not "Martin Scorsese's Hugo" or "Steven Spielberg's Lincoln."
It seems pretentious to me ... and looking at the trailer only confirms that assumption even more.
EDIT: And Bram Stoker's Dracula says to me (or at last attempted to) that it was more or less a faithful telling of the Stoker novel. It wasn't "Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula." There have been other attempts to "legitimize" a classic title by adding the original author's name into it, like "James Joyce's The Dead," etc.
Whizzer --- I just read your additional explanation, and titles aren't protected under copyright law. There can be 30 movies called "The Butler," and there's nothing anybody can do about it. The content cant be the same, but the title is not protected. However, it's wise to avoid using identical titles, because it causes much confusion with audiences. So, yes, that is (hopefully) the reason they added Lee's name. But it still sounds pretentious to me. Almost as much as his last film's title, 'Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#9Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 9:46am
That's what I thought too Besty, but Warner Brother's sued and won.
They apparently have a short film from the 1916 (!!) named The Butler. The whole thing is very strange to me because there are a lot of films with the same title.
But it is what it is.
Weinstein claims it goes back to some bad blood over the rights to The Hobbit. Who knows? It's odd though.
#10Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 9:47am
In July, The MPAA's Title Registration Bureau ruled that The Weinstein Co. could not use the title The Butler, which is also the name of a 1916 Warner Bros. short film. Weinstein appealed the decision and tried to get Warner Bros. to back down, but TRB's appeals board agreed with the earlier decision, so the title was changed to Lee Daniels' The Butler.
Link
#11Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 9:48am
Here's a link to an article about The Weinstein Company losing the appeal and having to change the title.
Warner Brothers was able to successfully sue and copyright the title, strange as it may sound!
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a499919/the-weinstein-company-loses-appeal-in-the-butler-title-lawsuit.html
ETA: Beat me to it, taz! :)
#12Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 9:57am
The only time a title can be protected is if it is trademarked, not copyrighted. And they can only trademark a title if it is considered a "brand" for business.
Warner Bros. has hundreds (literally) of trademarks taken out on "The Wizard of Oz" from 1939, but they lost a recent attempt to block Disney from using "Oz the Great and Powerful" as the title of their film. That phrase is from the MGM movie, not the book, where he is known as "Oz the Great and Terrible." Regardless, the case was thrown out, saying the title couldn't be copyrighted OR trademarked, since the trademark didn't represent an established brand of any kind. And the phrase "Oz the Great and Powerful" had been around for over 70 years.
Anyway ... I'm seriously surprised if the title "The Butler" was protected by a trademark. Especially, since according to IMDb.com, there are only two short films with that tile from 1915 and 1916 (Warner Bros. wasn't founded until 1923.) I would guess that both films have fallen entirely out of copyright protection, even for their content.
There are also episodes from three TV shows entitled "The Butler," and a short film from Ireland called "The Butler" in 2005 as well, which from the looks of it, never received distribution.
Sounds fishy to me, like a trumped up excuse to include the director's name.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#13Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 10:01am
I don't know all the intricate legalities of the case, but Warner definitely brought the case. Weinstein has already spent tons of money on promotional material that had to be scrapped as well as having to change the release date.
I honestly don't think that anyone wanted to include Daniels' name.
Having said that, the fact that Warners won is mystifying for all the reasons you mention, besty.
#14Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 10:04am
This just all sounds like so much bullsh*t.
Warner Bros. didn't even exist until 1923. My grandfather was a founding member of the film company as their financial officer (later Exec. VP, Treasurer) through 1955.
So Warners allegedly owns the rights to a short made in 1916, seven years before their company was formed? And it's still protected under copyright law almost a hundred years later, when most copyrights have expired? And copyright law doesn't protect titles in the first place?
Something's up.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
iluvtheatertrash
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/9/04
#15Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 10:04amSigh... That sounds disappointing. I am seeing it at 2:20 today. I'm excited to see it, but hoping I like it a bit more...
#16Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 10:07am
One of those links hints that this transpired after a feud between Warner Brothers and Harvey erupted. Warner Brothers/Time Warner saw a way to financially stick it to Weinstein after they had spent so much money on publicity. I just don't understand how Warner Brothers actually won the suit.
The whole thing is stupid, but I believe that Daniels didn't want his name in the title.
#17Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 10:07am
Just so you don't think I'm insane (at least not for this reason), see the attached PDF from the U.S. Copyright Office, saying titles aren't protected.
My only guess is that something funky got "grandfathered" in from past copyright or trademark law. I"m surprised by two things: that the copyright hasn't already expired and that this title was ever legally protected.
US Copyright Office link
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#18Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 10:10am
Ha, I don't think you're insane at all! I didn't believe it either, because there are plenty of movies with the same title.
Cynically it wouldn't surprise me if Weinstein masterminded the entire lawsuit himself just to get publicity for the film.
#19Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 10:20am
Well, Whizzer, I would think Weinstein might have done that if it weren't for the expense of re-titling the film and changing its release date. That's huge and far from cheap. My first thought was that they overlooked a clause in Daniels' contract that required it. But there's no reason to point a finger at Warner Bros. then, plus all the courtroom crap and legal fees, etc., in addition to the other expenses.
My guess is that Warner Bros. is clearly fiercely protective of all its properties. They lost the "Oz the Great and Powerful" case due to the reasons I stated. But they won this one, and the reason has to be some sort of previous copyright laws that were upheld ("grandfathered") in.
Weinstein wouldn't expect that or see it coming. But if Warners' lawyers dug around and found an old contract that had some how been renewed and was still active, plus included a "protected title" clause that also was "active," I can see why they used it as an opportunity to stick to Weinstein, and say, "Guess what? Surprise, surprise."
It just sounds so random.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#20Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 11:02amThe only thing that matters is that 40 odd years ago Jane Fonda went to Viet Nam. THAT is what we must be enraged about.
#21Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 11:08am... and she apparently has two lines in the movie as Nancy Reagan.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#22Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 11:13am
Honestly if you blink you will miss her. She has one small exchange with Whitaker and then she walks down some steps with Rickman (Reagan) at a White House dinner.
At least she gets to speak unlike Mariah Carey, who has a silent role. (Well she does get to scream off camera, but I can't verify that it was actually Mimi screaming or if it was someone else's scream added in the editing room.)
#23Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 11:18amI figured WB just wanted to stick it to Harvey Weinstein; Harvey has won a lot of people Oscars, but that means he's made a lot of other people very angry in the process. They did sue, and Daniels and Weinstein both tried to appeal to the judge, and apparently the agreement was to change it to LEE DANIELS' THE BUTLER. The ruling also states that the "Lee Daniels'" part had to be somewhat large (they specified a percentage), not printed in small font. The whole affair seemed very ridiculous, and possibly more entertaining than this movie. I find Daniels to be entirely incapable of subtlety, I can't stand his bigger-is-better approach.
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#24Lee Daniels' The Butler
Posted: 8/16/13 at 11:26amHis name in the title will be mystifying to the general audience. They should have gone with a title like What the Butler Saw or The Butler Did It.
Videos