The scene where Oscar helps that girl at the grocers by calling his grandmom and the scene where the dog dies, I thought both of them very trying to manipulate us to like Oscar more. I don't know if that happened in real life but in the movie it was a bit much and I got put off after those scenes and viewed the rest of the movie with bias.
shareI think the grocery store thing happened and the dog incident was more a metaphor from the writer/director.
If you found yourself liking him, why does that bother you? Did you go into this movie hoping to find some reason to hate him so the murder wouldn't impact you so much?
I liked him from the beginning, Michael B Jordan is one charming guy but those 2 scenes took me out of the movie, I felt the movie would've been better without those scenes.
shareYou and I have very different POV's about those scenes. I felt the dog scene was a foreshadow created by the director, demonstrating that it was an off day. That said, I would have been INCREDIBLY UPSET to know the grocer scene existed and didn't end up in the film. Manipulative? Sure, but for all the right reasons...just as I was liking him, he went and asked for his job back and when he couldn't get it, we saw the dangerous kid living on the edge come to light and surface just for one frightful second...it reminded you that he was a kid that has a troubled past and demons to face, and that he was doing what he could to fight them.
All art is manipulation in one form or another. By nature, we are trying to convey a POV with the final intent being to get the viewer to feel something...what they may or may not feel is up to their own personal experiences, but make no mistake, all art is manipulation.
Agreed that all movies are emotionally manipulative since that's the whole point of them.. Even documentaries and the news are emotionally manipulative. Hence terms like news STORY.
shareThat may be true audiopinions, but this one seemed manipulative in excess.
share
Perhaps the problem is that the manipulation could have been more artfully done so that the art would trump the manipulation.
"manipulateed in excess"
How were you manipulated? What did you feel after the supermarket scene? What do you think the director wanted you to feel?
You're right, it's all manipulation - the difference between high and low art, though, is whether the manipulation is done effectively.
As Mark Twain said ... "a great author (this applies to any art), is like God in the universe of his book ... present everywhere but visible nowhere" (might be paraphrasing slightly).
If the manipulation becomes obvious, the entire effect is lost.
An author in his book must be like God in the universe, present everywhere and visible nowhere. ~Gustave Flaubert
~*~
http://www.jmberman.com
Beautifully written.
shareGrant wasn't a kid. He was an adult.
shareThe Grocery Store incident did happen in a article where his grandmother was interviewed she stated that part was true
shareFirst of all I want to make it clear that I actually did enjoy the movie. However you are absolutely right. It was very manipulative and described Oscar as a kid who had done bad things in the past and who had recently turned it around. The problem was that almost every scene was about that and at some point it started to become ungenuine. This kid did not deserve what happened to him, but I am sure that the story is more nuanced than shown in this movie. The movie was more about building up a positive character rather than building up a story.
shareTotally with you. I couldn't help comparing the film with Boys Don't Cry-- a film also about a completely unjust tragedy, which you watch knowing full well what is coming. Boys Don't Cry painted a very nuanced picture of the main character and victim, and yet this did not detract from the impact of the tragedy. I thought Fruitvale tried too hard to present everything in a quite linear and "realistic" way when perhaps it could've taken some artistic license to be a little bit more nuanced, and more stylised.
I did enjoy the performances and the story is one that deserves to be told, I was just a bit disappointed with the film's scripting and heavy-handed symbolism.
You seem to have missed some of the movie. He threatened his ex-employer, and the audience is led to believe he was actively cheating on the mother of his child. He was lying to her and didn't tell her he got fired. He only said something when he was forced into it. There was a lot of patience and wisdom to the story telling, and I think all of those scenes were a lot more nuanced than your responce indicates.
shareAgreed. The film depicts Oscar as a liar, a cheater, unpunctual, a sometime jailbird, hot-tempered (note the prison scene as well as the bit with his former boss), and not above selling drugs, and yet also loving, kind, spontaneous, generous, and striving to become better. In other words, richly human. Which is why his death at 22 resonates so much when you watch the film. He never got a chance to mature into his best self.
shareThey made the woman in the grocery store seem like a fool about to have a nervous breakdown! So exaggerated - I'm sure that with the talent of the actor playing Oscar Grant, the writer and director could have had a nuanced portrayal of him and his experiences without such an exaggerated performance from the woman. Similarly, the friendly pit bull that died in his arms and left blood on his shirt. And the pregnant woman and her husband.
shareActually the manipulation part seemed to come part the character who was probably nice and all, but also trying to prove to his boss that he was dedicated to his job by taking good care of the clients.
shareIf they did try to make this emotionally manipulative it definitely worked for me. Cried rivers at the end.
shareOnly to people who allow themselves to be manipulated.
The lowest common denominator, as it were.
Watch Me Win
I felt it really brought down a film that didn't need those elements. Really, quite obviously manipulative and somewhat diminishes a powerful and important story that deserved to be told.
shareYes. I thought the movie was quite good and well-acted, but yes, it was emotionally manipulative and overwrought (as too many movies seem to be).
I could not believe he would dump out that whole bag of valuable weed when he just lost his job and told his sister he would help her pay her rent. Even if he was planning to go legit, I think he would have made that last sale out of desperation--needing cash for rent before he could line up another job.
Maybe he'd seen more than enough movies about what awful things happen to crooks who try to make one last score.... :)
shareI thought the scene with the dog was kind of ridiculous and completely unnecessary (assuming it didn't actually happen). That was the low point of the movie for sure, but the rest of it was strong enough that I had forgotten about it by the end.
shareThe scene was made up. It wasn't the only one. Nothing like a little research. On Forbes.com, there is an article that talks about the manipulation of the movie. Actually, it's more of an editorial. Whatever the case, it reads in part:
"Coogler has already admitted he made up a scene that shows Grant lovingly coming to the aid of a dog hit by a car, and staying tenderly by the pit bull’s side as it expires. Coogler gave a garbled and unsatisfying explanation to the Huffington Post when pressed: “That’s not the intent, to show that this guy’s a great guy. That wasn’t the intention at all. And that’s fine, that’s the risk that you run with a scene like that. I can tell you what the scene was about and why it’s there — because, it’s funny, it’s a very polarizing scene. Some people get the intention and it’s their favorite scene in the movie. Some people hate the whole movie because of the scene. Like, ‘I feel manipulated.’” Coogler went on to make the point that pit bulls are supposed to be symbolic of unjustly feared young black men.
Coogler also fabricated a scene in which Grant, a convicted drug dealer, throws away a bag of marijuana to indicate to the audience that he will be a changed man with the new year: The first few hours of Jan. 1, 2009 would be his last spent alive."
The entire article is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2013/07/25/fruitvale-station-is-loose-with-the-facts-in-an-effort-to-elicit-sympathy-for-oscar-grant/
Honestly I don't get everyone's criticism of the dog scene. I quite liked it. Yes, perhaps it was a bit on the nose, but it demonstrated his character and who he was/could be - he was the kind of person who would try and save a defenseless person/animal if he could, because he cared. Maybe he acted like a bit of a punk sometimes but there was another side to him that mattered.
When you grow up, your heart dies.
Honestly I don't get everyone's criticism of the dog scene. I quite liked it.