Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

7/10
Blatant case of Oscar panelists robbing `Do The Right Thing' in favor of a more shallow look at the racial divide
26 February 2003
Warning: Spoilers
In the so-called year of weak films that was 1989, the most important and relevant film of the century arrived. That film was the masterpiece of Spike Lee's career, a little joint called `Do The Right Thing' which remains mired in controversy but critically acclaimed. Indeed, Roger Ebert continues to stand by it as the best film of the year. The biggest robbery of Academy Award history aside from neglecting `Raging Bull' in 1980 was not even nominating `Do The Right Thing' and instead awarding the far less superior `Driving Miss Daisy.'

Possible Spoilers

After years of putting it off due to anger over the lack of appreciation for `Do The Right Thing,' I made the journey to my local Blockbuster and got up the nerve to rent `Driving Miss Daisy.' I'm even angrier now. What we have here is a very blatant case of Oscar panelists purposefully choosing a movie that barely scratches the surface of the racial divide without having to take the extra leap that comes with awarding the more truthful albeit forceful Civil Rights gem `Do The Right Thing.'

The fact is that `Driving Miss Daisy' was shallow and every tension about race and religion was left under the surface. There seems to be some promise when Hoke (Morgan Freeman) tells Daisy (Jessica Tandy) that her Jewish synagogue was bombed but Hoke never stands up for Daisy's religious beliefs by asserting how evil that event was and it seems to be spoken of only in passing. Similarly, Daisy gets tickets to witness the preaching of Martin Luther King Jr. and invites Hoke at the last minute. I had the feeling that this episode had more to do with her desire for a bond with Hoke than her support for the Civil Rights Movement. Her son Boolie seems to agree with this premise when he questions Daisy's sudden interest in King's message. The episode seems tacked on as a way of giving viewers a timeline for the film and pretending to provide some depth for the very simple story. The scene in the graveyard where the truth about Hoke's illiteracy is revealed was excellent and an entire film could have been created from it, but `Driving Miss Daisy' continues after this scene without so much as an afterthought to the latest developments in Hoke's quest to read.

I know that the other viewers of `Driving Miss Daisy' will discredit most of what I've said with the idea that films should be subtle, and I concur with this notion. Films like `Driving Miss Daisy' are purely delightful when compared with loud bombs and pathetic love stories in `Pearl Harbor' and terrible sound editing in `Armageddon.' But an Oscar-winning film should be original and provocative. It should have more depth than the other films released in that year. It should contain a message that is new and refreshing. `Driving Miss Daisy' contains nothing we haven't seen before and is not daring. Along with `Do The Right Thing,' the nominated film `My Left Foot' contained the formula for an Academy Award and it was wonderful to watch as Christy (Daniel Day-Lewis) learned to master painting with his feet. And yet for some reason, the Academy embraced `Driving Miss Daisy.'

If there is any reason to see `Driving Miss Daisy' it is the performances. Jessica Tandy was truly deserving of the Academy Award as Daisy and I thoroughly enjoyed her fits and initial lack of acceptance of Hoke. I was also impressed with Morgan Freeman, though I got very tired of watching as Daisy and Hoke shared an important conversation like "Hoke, your my best friend," and his only response was "Yes'm." The finale in the retirement home was touching and capped off what I felt was a good but forgettable little film. The film is surely one of the better of 1989 but it's not memorable and certainly not moving enough for Oscar.

7/10
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed