How 'Driving Miss Daisy' Became One of the Most Scorned Best Picture Winners Ever (cinema, film)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The choice caused controversy and skepticism even at the time, with the New York Times asking if the film had a “subtext that summons up a longing for the good old days before the civil rights movement.” And in the 25 years since it was released on Dec. 13, 1989, Daisy’s reputation has hardly improved. So how did the divisive little movie manage to win the most prestigious prize in cinema? And does it deserve the scorn it continues to attract today?
Apparently there are more americans who refuse to submit to the liberal agenda of forcing a 'guilt of submission' on a class of people in attempt to force them to accept a self imposed victimhood than there are those with that agenda.
History is just that... Full of people who fail to learn from the past but continue to try to revise it.
It showed the human condition (need for companionship and fear of growing old) and showed resolve rather than inflame people about racism.
The new MLK movie coming out looks extremely divisive, and I think this is more of what liberal Hollywood is aiming for. The more inflammatory the better.
“subtext that summons up a longing for the good old days before the civil rights movement.”
Have these people seen the movie? There are multiple instances in the film where the inability of Hoke to be with Miss Daisy as friends was portrayed as decidedly negative by both of them! The whole movie was about their friendship and how it couldn't be as close as they wanted (no, I'm not talking sex...) because of the segregation and racist issues of that time.
Well, what I remember from that year's Oscar race is that people thought that Born on the Fourth of July would win Best Picture. After all, Oliver Stone did win Best Director, whereas Daisy's director was not even nominated. I don't remember there ever being a controversy over the film and race issues. Also, at the time, Do The Right Thing was not seen as that big a deal as it's made out to be today.
I loved the movie; and the nuanced performances by Tandy and Freeman made it an outstanding story. I can't call it a totally feel-good story; but it was an interesting portrait of two unusual characters and their relationship, which is strictly codified by the culture of that time/place, somehow managing to evolve into a friendship. Which actually is how it would have gone, with a Southern Jewish lady and her black driver in the 1960's. I thought the character of Hoke to be very appealing, a good and intelligent man striving for dignity in a place where he was regarded as a second-class citizen. In most cases, with a conservative old southern lady, the best that Hoke could hope for was to be treated like a valued servant, which he became, but he and Miss Daisy could, within that relationship, came to recognize and like each other as human beings and rely on each other, especially Miss Daisy for Hoke, for emotional support. The movie certainly did not eulogize the repression of African-Americans in the South in the 1950's/60's, it was subtly conveyed in that Hoke was not whipped by Southern white thugs but menaced (we knew he could have been if he went too far out of line), and there were so many things we take for granted that Hoke would not have been able to do. And I loved it that Hoke was able to eventually make some money...
Miss Daisy reminded me a lot of my grandmother; and I thought Tandy was brilliant in the role.
DMD is not a great movie. Not worthy of Best Picture. But it is a good movie. Anyone who thinks the movie portrays a fondness for benevolent racism saw a different movie than I did.
Now GLADIATOR, another Best Picture winner? That is truly a bad movie.
It showed the human condition (need for companionship and fear of growing old) and showed resolve rather than inflame people about racism.
The new MLK movie coming out looks extremely divisive, and I think this is more of what liberal Hollywood is aiming for. The more inflammatory the better.
Yup. And what a surprise that one-trick-pony Oprah Winfrey was involved in it. This time, it's being released later in the year. That way, it won't be overlooked or forgotten come Oscar time. After all, what would the Academy Awards be without the entire cast and crew traipsing on stage to collect the award and proceed to preach to the rest of us for 10 minutes.
If you are a person that looks for racism in everything, you will find racism in everything. Even places where it doesn't exist at all. Racism is still a big issue in this country because there is a group of people who work tirelessly to keep it at the forefront of everything to keep collective guilt alive in one group and to make sure another group suffers from perennial victimhood. They work hard to make an entire country feel guilty for something that they never practiced or were involved in. And they do it all for the sake of power, money, and wealth. And people lap it up. You have to admit that they are pretty slick at it and have been for years because they have been doing the exact same thing since the late 60's and a lot of people bought into it and still do. Meanwhile, things don't get better for the other group, and they can't figure out why. If you are going to keep being useful as a handy pool of victims, it isn't supposed to get better for you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.