Written by Tom Moore
Imagine this: a film that takes place in a time of racism and segregation where a white person and a black person learn from one another to defeat internal racism and have better affinity for one another—and it’s based on a true story. Sound familiar?
While many films have had this same plot for years, no other film comes to my mind faster than last year’s Oscar Best Picture winner, Green Book. Now, while I still find that film to be an enjoyable watch with likable lead performances, I’ve come around, with the help of a little research and perspective, to realize the problems it represents and reflects about Hollywood. It has a distinct lack of black perspective since the film is entirely from Tony’s (Viggo Mortensen) point of view, does not really utilize the real-life Green Book in its story, and has plenty of controversial people–I’m looking at you Peter Farrelly–surrounding it that it shouldn’t have been a Best Picture nominee, let alone a winner.
To sum up films like Green Book, they’re problematic because they tend to just give one side as the main perspective with the illusion of inclusion and change, but never have I seen film more problematic than The Best of Enemies.
As usual, the film is based on a true story about a Klu Klux Klan leader, C.P. Ellis (Sam Rockwell) and a local black organizer, Ann Atwater (Taraji P. Henson), having to come together to fix a schooling problem in Durham, North Carolina. The two strongly dislike one another at first, but through learning to understand one another, the two begin to come together to integrate the school district.
The film’s main problem is with its perspective and who it tries to get you to resonate and sympathize with: Ellis. Frankly, I don’t care how many scenes the film has of Ellis with his family or Ellis caring for his mentally disabled son or even how many charming lines you try to get Rockwell to say, I’m not just going to outwardly sympathize with a KKK leader just because he has a small change of heart. Growing up, I’ve always been taught that the “golden rule” is that you treat others how you want to be treated. So, considering the film outwardly makes you dislike him almost immediately, it’s kind of hard to ever see him as someone who shouldn’t get the hate that he doled out in return.
Instead, the film constantly tries to create sympathy for Ellis by giving him more screen-time, making this film supposedly about the unlikely friendship between two opposites more like a one-sided story. Honestly, Ellis probably garners about 80% of the screen-time compared to Henson’s Atwater, leading to a film that lacks any sort of black perspective. Rather, we’re left with a clearly white perspective-driven story that asks for empathy rather than signifying a problem.
The film doesn’t even utilize Atwater’s strong and loud personality, except for in a few scenes, and Henson’s ability is wasted here. Since she’s not in much of the film, Atwater comes off as unimportant and I never really got to know her character. The film, instead, utilizes her to oppose Ellis and help create a sympathetic atmosphere for him in the film’s finale that left me both uncomfortable and confused.
For a film that believes it establishes a strong and unlikely friendship, it doesn’t do it in the slightest and instead creates moments filled with predictable lines and a change of heart that isn’t genuine at all. When Ellis has his big speech, his evolution never comes off as believable or genuine as it doesn’t build throughout the film and there’s literally no relationship that builds between him and Atwater. Even for the few scenes that they share together, there’s very little relatability or moments where Ellis might realize he’s wrong. For instance, when he visits a burned down school, he complains afterwards about how Atwater’s daughter looked at him like a monster rather than that these kids are learning in a dangerous environment. The focus is on him when it shouldn’t be at all and it just puts more emphasis on a character whose change of heart doesn’t feel like it means anything.
Even his speech comes off like he’s reading a script because I had no emotional investment in his change. It actually came off like he was paying Atwater back for a favor she did earlier for his son rather than a true change of heart. The moment is incredibly predictable, and I actually couldn’t stop snickering because the words were so predictable that the guy sitting behind was constantly guessing what the next line would be and being spot on every time.
The only thing good that comes out of films like The Best of Enemies and Green Book is that it, hopefully, makes audiences more aware that having a full perspective is important and keeping things one-sided leads to more problems than solutions. In its problematic nature, The Best of Enemies showcases how Hollywood thinks they understand how to create stories about inclusion and integration but actually grow farther from understanding much of anything.
Rating: 3/10
