Talk:Monster's Ball

message: I edited the entire section for clarity, grammar and style. BrianO 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Summary 

message: The following paragraph from the article seems deeply flawed, particularly in its failure to contemplate the racism of the attitudes being expressed, and its failure to attribute them to sources:
:African Americans were deeply split over Berry's winning the Award as well as actor Denzel Washington, who while consistently playing in acceptable and heroic roles, won his Oscar for playing a venal Los Angeles cop in Training Day. Some of these differences are generational, while others are based on African American cultural, political and religious mores. Those viewers did not believe, for example, that Berry was actually performing. Others believed that Berry had actually made love to Thornton, causing them to label her as a whore and as a race traitor to African Americans, particularly to black males. A few ambiguous stills made the Internet rounds to "prove" that the actors were having sexual intercourse. Other African Americans, using biological determinism, suggested that a real black woman--that is, someone who was not biracial--would not authentically represent black people in this manner. Still others felt that Berry's efforts were mercenary, and did not advance the stature or the cause of African American actors in Hollywood. Actress Angela Bassett, who has long been considered a future Oscar pick, reflected black displeasure (and possibly the competitiveness among minority actresses in an already limited field) in a highly publicized Newsweek magazine interview in 2002.
It would do much better (a) to cite specific writers who held the beliefs which are here being ascribed to "African Americans"; and (b) to accurately describe these attitudes not with the vague expression "cultural, political, and religious mores" but rather as racial-purity or anti-miscegenation beliefs. We have a requirement here to cite sources, and to avoid attributing to a vague group (such as "African Americans") what appear to be views that are not in fact widely held. We also have a requirement here to avoid weasel terms.
It is contradictory to Wikipedia policy, both on citing sources and on neutrality, to print demeaning expressions such as "whore" and "race traitor" without comment, and to attribute them to "African Americans" and "viewers" rather than to the specific persons responsible for these words. These demeaning expressions should be cited or cut.
Anyone got sources? --FOo 06:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole controversy section sounds like a newspaper blowing something out of proportion... --Joy [shallot] 23:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism paragraph needs sources 

message: The racism section needs work, and the Fit4Free references seem like tacky self-promotion. -St|eve 09:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tacky edits 

message: I'm sorry to say, but the edition on this article is horrible. 90% of the page is going through views that were expressed by a tiny minority of extremists. The 10% that's left do not do justice to the movie. I know I should be bold and edit it myself, but I don't have time for what needs to be a full rewrite. Adidas 08:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  not wiki-worthy 

message: "Strangely, it would appear as if none of the people proposing this had any objection to Washington's winning best actor. Jamie Foxx's 2004 best actor win for portraying the beloved singer Ray Charles in Ray may have put the kibosh on this theory."
I took this out for two reasons. One, it's VERY untrue. I attended an HBCU the year of Berry and Washington's win (as well as Foxx's) and believe me, the backlash against Denzel was loud and long. Denzel's Oscar win was more or less forgiven because Denzel has been in the business for years, and people felt that his Oscar, while certainly not worthy of THAT performance, was more or less an award for past work. On the other hand, Halle was looked at as a moderately talented actresses at best, who had done nothing worth note before (or after) this particular movie, which depicted her nude and graphic having sex with a racist white man. THAT was the crucial reason as to why Halle was slammed where Denzel was not. And while the interracial slant was certainly a factor, most people seemed to be more insulted by the fact that the white man was a racist, as opposed to be white. As for Foxx, I think there was no controversy because people honestly didn't care. Ray Charles wasn't exactly a stand-up guy (I thought the filmn was too kind to him and seriously inaccurate), but he was a real person; Denzel and Halle's characters were fictional.
Honestly, an entire article could be written about the controversy surrouding this film, and I wouldn't mind seeing one, because I personally am a little tired of African-Americans being portrayed as a bunch of chomping-at-the-bit people unable to see a woman of color being manhandled by a white man. We had our problems with this film, and they were quite valid, in my opinion, but it all seems to disappear behind a lot of "OMGWTF NOT A WHITE MAN!!!1111" BS myth. News flash - we're a rather liberal thinking and intelligent people. We don't care that Halle kissed a white guy, and we don't care that she is biracial. No, really. PennyGWoods 13:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No controversy about Denzel and Jamie?

message: :I'm putting it right back in.  You can believe what you want, but I think that my statement has credence.  It would have been better if you had simply disagreed, and not tried to censor my writing, which basically confirms some of what you have written.
:I don't claim to be ignorant, not as a black feminist.  I know that I will seem repetitive, but I know for a fact that for a long time, legitimate black actresses have been admonished by other black actors or fans not to perform nude with white actors, particularly white male actors.  These expectations are connected with the fear of exploitation and of rape, and it goes straight back to slavery.  Hence, a black actress's body is not always used at the behest of her art or her performance, but rather at the expectations of others.  In other words, keep your blouse on and your legs closed.  Blacks must present an image of near chastity when it comes to depicting not only interracial sex, but even black sex.  It's almost as if it doesn't happen; it's sometimes so stylized we don't even feel the sweat.
:There does seem to be a kind of 'ownership' that black people engage in regarding the exposure or depiction of black actors and in this case, black female bodies on film no matter how it is depicted.  Fans and critics have insisted that if a black woman actress plays a nude scene in any way (even beyond the recognizable prostitute), there must be something 'wrong' with her, i.e., that she must be 'freakish' or she enjoys depicting freakish behavior to conform with white views of blacks, or that she does not represent black people, or black mores or customs or religious beliefs.  This is borne out by the virulent responses to the film that I saw on black entertainment Websites--which commented on and speculated outrageously about her personal life and even her ancestry as an explanation for her performance and nomination.  I'm sure that you and your fellow students didn't hold back your opinions either at that time.  White actors--even the A level kind--don't get this kind of flack.  That's a heavy, hell of a cross to place on the backs of black creative people.  
:My comment about Denzel was pretty much written in an ironic tone.  And I agree--Denzel got an Oscar for his body of work thus far, including Malcolm Xand The Hurricane. It pointed out a continuing double standard in the community.  Unfortunately, you didn't get it.  We're both right about the same thing.  The amount of anger and invective, and the charges of sellout leveled at Denzel Washington's performance was not as loud or dismissive as the response to Halle Berry's.  The sex scene was more than just two people 'knocking boots' as it were; no one really talks about the secondary sex scene when the pair are not as desperate and are more relaxed and appreciative of each other.  They focus on The Scene without inquiring about what it truly meant in the context of the film.  In other words, to you and others, Berry won an Oscar for a sex scene, not for her role.  No, I really don't think so.
:Even if Berry continues to work in mediocre roles (and no one says that she probably has to pay the bills for her failed marriages, her accidents, and to simply stay afloat like other actors while she happens on better scripts), I believe that in at least this one role, she stood apart, and for this, she deserves some respect.--gab 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re 'I took out this line' and Denzel 

message: I don't think that the film was porn, either; you do not see penis enter vagina.  However, it did have either a PG-13 or an NC-17 rating.  I have not seen Charlize Theron's film.  I believe, though, that the sex scene between Leticia and Hank is far longer and more involved than those films that you mentioned.
We can talk about films like The Night Porter, Eyes Wide Shut Caligula, The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover, and Midnight Cowboy being groundbreaking for sexually explicit content--for their time.  I see no problem with what I wrote, but your argument has some credence and I will reword it soon.--gab 00:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  response to sexually explicit 

message: Someone wrote ""Imagine the seething indignation that a Jewish man might feel while watching a story in which the widow of a Nazi concentration camp victim has an intimate relationship with the SS officer that shoved her husband into one of those ovens at Auschwitz!""
>>
Sorry, but that kind of contradiction is EXACTLY the kind of thing that makes for a compelling plot!!  It appears that the skin runs thin around here....
Quigonpaj 04:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF MOVIES 

message: I fixed some spelling and grammar errors in the Controversy within acclaim section.--As4xx 05:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Errors 

message: I haven't seen the movie, which is why I'm posting this here instead of just making the edit myself.  The opening paragraph of the plot summary says:
Buck seemingly taught Hank how to hate which results in Buck's hatred of his father, his son and members of the neighboring community.
Shouldn't that be Hank's hatred of his father, etc.? - Walkiped (T | C) 16:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in plot summary? 

message: I made a few edits and in the edit summary mistakenly typed NPOV instead of POV, so if anyone sees that and asks why someone would remove NPOV material, here's your answer. Mcr29 (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "NPOV" edits

message: When an article contains comments from a critic that is factually wrong, should that be rebutted/corrected? I ask because this article quotes film critic Esther Iverem as writing, "you have to wonder what it takes for a black woman to be named black actress . . . Who was the last 'best actress' who did a nude sex scene?" The clear implication from Iverem's quote is that it had been a long time someone had won a Best Actress Academy Award for a film in which they did a nude sex scene. It also implies that non-black winners are put on a pedestal where they are shielded from sex scenes while black actresses are sexualized. In actuality, a white actress had won for a film with nude sex scenes just 2 years before - Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry. Swank's scenes were actually more graphic. Beyond that, I can't find the quoted in the linked Iverem article. Maybe it's erroneous or maybe the quote was removed from a prior version. So should the quote be removed? Or should the wiki article state something like, "Hilary Swank won Best Actress two years before for a role that included nude sex scenes"? Or should the article be left as is? --JamesAM (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, she's wrong and it's verifiable. I've removed it as well as the poor analogy to Nazis, then cleaned up the section and the lead a bit. I left the critic's 2nd quote about how racism is used there, mostly because of the editorial opinions expressed above. By the way, if anyone knows how to combine the 3 hatnotes into one continuous paragraph (so theyre not so spaced out and distracting) please do so. Also, some of the above discussion threads should be merged as there are separate ones for individual comments about similar aspects, and then separate sections for replies. El duderino (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect implication from critic Esther Iverem 

message: There have been several attempts to change the location of the prison in this article from Georgia to Louisiana, citing the identification of Louisiana on the prison uniforms visible in the film.  I can see why this mistake is being made, as there are two unreadable patches on the sleeves of the uniform of the uniforms that together, roughly resemble the outline of the state of Louisiana.  However, in a close-up of Hank in the window of his car, another patch on the top of his sleeve clearly says. G.S.P, which obviously means 'Georgia State Prison'.
Additionally, in the film, Leticia states that her husband "got electrocuted in Jackson", which references the location of Death Row (since 1980) in the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification State Prison at Jackson, Georgia.  Also in the film, when Hank travels to submit his resignation, he is going to the Georgia Department of Corrections headquarters at Reidsville, Georgia.  During his travels, he passes scenes of the prison's extensive farm system at the adjacent Rogers State Prison. Also, during these travels, a Georgia license plate can be seen on Hank's car. Yunchie (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the only concrete reference to the location is in the script where the "Georgia Diagnostic and Classification" name is explicitly used for the prison setting. The rest can be written off as either mistakes by the filmmakers, an intentional attempt to set the movie in a generic "Southern" location rather than depict a particular state, or inevitable inclusion of Louisiana items due to filming in Louisiana. Since the one and only time anything is identified as explicitly being in a particular state, in either the screenplay or the final film, indicates Georgia, I think the article has to yield to that, absent a citable mainstream critic who presents a case that the film is set somewhere else as an intentional, thematic choice by the filmmakers - i.e., not an IMDB goof based on seeing one random uniform patch or whatever.  Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prison Location 

message: I added mention he was Bob Ortiz, I'm not sure if you see him, all I remember is a cop busting in door and a bunch of guys approaching to take her stuff out. Interesting thing: end credits mention the "Unit Production Manager" was named Rob Ortiz. Do we credit the crew in movie articles sometimes, or just the actors? 184.145.18.191 (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Landlord