Discuss Suburbicon
Discuss → Movies → Suburbicon → General
Meh, but just like in the movie some on here and IMDB focus on the black vs white side
posted by drjekel_mrhydeSTAFFMOD on January 27, 2018 at 9:30 AM
The movie is about a murder for hire and insurance fraud, but the town is more focused on the black family. No one in this town is even bothered by the home invasion, murder, the sister of the dead woman moving in with the widow, the sister in law changed her hair color to look exactly like the dead wife. The entire town is so mad at the black couple that they don't pay any attention to a murder going on in the middle of a well lit street. I think the story is parallel to the bad comments online, in that no one gives one shiat about the main story, but are more offended by them throwing in a racial subplot.
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on March 29, 2018 at 5:33 AM
It's garbage. It attempted to mash up some commentary about race hate with some kind of spoof of Double Indemnity or similar. Not even close to being funny, Serial Mom it aint. Absolutely tone deaf in every regard.
And what is it with Clooney's obsession with this period anyway? It's a beautiful looking movie but pointless.
Reply by DRDMovieMusings
on December 8, 2018 at 4:17 PM
You know it was based on a true story, right?
Reply by DRDMovieMusings
on December 8, 2018 at 4:19 PM
You know it was based on a true story, right? They didn't "throw in" a racial subplot, this actually happened, and shows the degree to which people can be blinded to the ugliness in their own reality because of undeserved, irrational, racial hate towards others.
Reply by MongoLloyd
on December 13, 2018 at 5:27 AM
White people are bad, umkaaayyy...
Reply by DRDMovieMusings
on December 13, 2018 at 2:27 PM
No, white people are not bad.
White supremacy is bad.
And, it's time to get that straight and stop conflating these two concepts. Why is it that calling out white supremacy results in defense of whiteness? The two are not (supposed to be) the same. Is there a difference between being white and being a white supremacist? I believe the answer is yes, but some have difficulty separating the two, and that's a problem - and an opportunity.
Reply by A-Dubya
on December 13, 2018 at 7:21 PM
It's very telling, and sad that this even has to be explained to people in almost 2019. I have no hope in most of humanity for the future.
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on December 13, 2018 at 8:48 PM
The problem with identitarian politics when it gets into media is that it is vulnerable to both gross, and faulty, generalisations and simplifications. Of course it should be the case that if a character is white and racist and this is part of the story then that needs to be depicted. Same as if a character is black and violent, or Jewish and mendacious, or Oriental and inscrutable. The problems in taking this route ought to be self evident. In a novel there is the space to give this context and explanation. Not usually so in a 100 minutes or so of screentime.
Screenwriters need to be especially careful of depicting this stuff on screen. Done badly it actually retards discussion and worsens and deepens divides.
In the case of this movie, the 'bad white people' subplot, if it even merits that description, is entirely un necessary to the main story. It seems to serve as some kind of set dressing to the period. That, I would argue, is insulting to all sides of the equation.
Reply by A-Dubya
on December 13, 2018 at 9:04 PM
^ I would mostly agree with that. I definitely do see how it could deepen divides and do further harm, when a frank, real discussion about the issue would be more beneficial to everyone.
Reply by MongoLloyd
on December 13, 2018 at 11:13 PM
I find it intensely irritating that this film was made, as it's obviously engineered to hammer the message that "white people are bad" right down to the contrived, emotionally manipulative ending. It's based on a real story? Who gives a sh!t? It's just more fanning of the "racial injustice" flames that do nothing but continue to keep people p!ssed off at one another. THIS doesn't help. It's not a crucial message and it will not make people "think" or act differently. All it does is serve to continue the fantasy that bIacks are somehow oppressed by "the white man," which is an absolute load of bollocks.
Reply by DRDMovieMusings
on December 13, 2018 at 11:53 PM
I'm having difficulty understanding why this is missing so many of you, but this movie is based on a true story.
George Clooney co-wrote and directed this story around William and Daisy Myers, and their experiences in Levittown, PA in 1957. There's plenty of documentation of this, another ugly episode in American history, feel free to read about it.
So, no, he did not foist/force/shove a racial angle into the story - racism is the story.
If the despicable actions of those racists causes discomfort for white people, well, imagine what it must have been like for the innocent Myers family simply trying to mind their business and live their lives, a most American ideal.
If we today know that the racist terrorism against these people was wrong, then telling the story shouldn't be offensive to anyone except those who may still be harboring racist sentiments who are frustrated with being shamed by modern conscience and sensibilities that know racism to be wrong.
Reply by DRDMovieMusings
on December 14, 2018 at 12:05 AM
Indeed. And we hear it all the time. Everything is "an attack on heritage" or "diversity is code for white genocide". Clearly, there is some deep-rooted knowledge that there is a very close - too close - relationship between the two, so close that they are easily and all-to-often misconstrued as equivalent, hence, to attack one is met with defense of the other.
When I call out white supremacy, I've no intention of "genocide" on the white people in my life whom I love, nor for any white person, just because they are white. As I explain, at length, in the link I provided above, being proud of where one comes from - UK/Europe included - is absolutely fine.
And, anyone who is white, but is sure they are not racist, should be capable of calling out and seeking to dismantle and eliminate white supremacy and its socio-political and economic pillars and mechanisms that sustain it. We need more white people to be clear on this distinction, and start being the first ones to stop confusing the two and treating them like they are the same.
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on December 14, 2018 at 1:07 AM
Firstly, 'based on a true story' is a meaningless phrase. A story either conforms to the facts or it is a work of fiction. One could just as easily claim Jurassic Park is 'based on a true story' because it has dinosaurs and some sciencey stuff.
Secondly, this is billed as a black comedy. Not a documentary. Not a docudrama. Not a drama. If Clooney is trying to fix the world one joke at a time the movie needs to be both actually funny and socially pertinent. It is neither.
Thirdly, the idea that racism is the core story in this movie is absurd. The story is about insurance fraud. The race aspect was so irrelevant and distracting that this would have been a better movie with it removed entirely. That is what people on this thread have been saying.
If Clooney, or anyone else, wants to make a comedy about racism then they should just go out and do that. Get Out does a brilliant job of this. Clooney, and some of the people banging drums on this thread, should take notes.
Reply by DRDMovieMusings
on December 14, 2018 at 1:09 AM
Wow.
Reply by DRDMovieMusings
on December 14, 2018 at 1:24 AM
Is Star Wars "based on a true story"? How about Independence Day? How about Apollo 13? Most rational people can recognize the difference between these movies and the degree to which "based on a true story" is not meaningless but meaningful. My point of reminding people of this fact is that those trying to argue that the racial issue was interjected into the story are off base; according to the writers, the historical events leading up to a race riot was precisely the core of the story.
A lot of movies are billed incorrectly. I don't think this movie, or several others I can think of that were billed as comedies, should have been billed as such at all. Billing it incorrectly sets false expectations which then leave people disappointed because what they saw is not what they went to see, and it clouds people's ability to accept the story for what it is or is trying to be, hence, we've got people all over this thread arguing that the racial issue was an annoying addition to the comedy they expected, when it was the core of the story that was not funny at all in its intended depiction of the ugliness of racism, which is what was intended that we be talking about.
The movie makers' attempt to tell a story with racism at the core can be considered good or bad, depending on the vantage of the viewer. They may very well have done a bad job of it. But, that the movie makers intended to make it a story with racism at the core is neither debatable nor disputable, because they outright said that was their intention and aim - to assert otherwise is what's absurd.
You think Get Out was a comedy? Nah, don't answer that. I think I'm done here.
Cheers.
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on December 14, 2018 at 1:53 AM
Of course Get Out was a comedy. Not 'just' a comedy, obviously, but that is the nature of the vehicle. Suburbicon is supposed to be a black comedy as well. What were you thinking when you saw an adult riding a kid's bicycle? I bet it wasn't, 'Gielgud would have nailed that scene'.
I have yet to hear anyone claim Star Wars was 'based on a true story' in order to justify script shortcomings in the way that has been done on this board with regard to Suburbicon. Repeating the (absurd) claim that it is 'based on a true story' as tho this mandates its inclusion in the movie is just waffle.
The problem with your argument is you are confusing different things. There is the clear right of writers and producers to insert social commentary into their movies. (And deal with the fallout.) Then there is good movie making which knows what to leave out and when. Clooney can be as stridently political as his democratic and economic freedoms allow. I for one would never try to curtail his rights to expression. People do however have a right to engage and reply, despite you claiming to 'be done here'.
More to the point, on a movie forum, people have a right to say when this editorialising ruins what might, just might, have been a movie worth paying for.
You might want to consider why, if the core story is, as you claim, the racism experienced by the black family, all of the leads billed in this movie are white actors. Is that also an example of 'incorrect billing' or was Clooney forced by dark racist powers in Hollywood to do that? The simple answer is that it reflects what the movie is actually about.