web
counter
 

It's Not a Question of How; It's a Question of What

By Agent Bedhead | Posted Under Career Assessments | Comments (22)



freeman1sm.jpg

Subject: Morgan Porterfield Freeman Jr., 73-year old American actor

Date of Assessment: October 15, 2010

Positive Buzzwords: Professional, trustworthy, dependable

Negative Buzzwords: See latter half of assessment.

The Case: Well, these weekly assessments have been running since January and have already covered two of the few other leading black men — Denzel Washington and Samuel L. Jackson — who continue to make things happen in Hollywood. Naturally, each of them occupies a specific niche within cinema: Denzel has adopted the strong, steady path; Samuel prefers the frenetic, dynamic, risk-taking (yet more commercialized) approach. Then, there’s Morgan Freeman, the late bloomer who plugged away for several years on “The Electric Company” and also spent a few decades on stage and television sets before hitting it big. Not until his early 50s did Freeman achieve mainstream name recognition and critical acclaim with late-1980s fare like Driving Miss Daisy and (in retrospect) an early atypical performance within Lean on Me. As Freeman’s profile grew, so did the scope of his movies (The Bonfire of the Vanities; Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves; Unforgiven; Amistad; Gone Baby Gone; and Invictus, just to name a few).

Quite often, Freeman’s roles encapsulate the “magical negro” or, in simpler terms, very wise characters with moderate-to-heavy authoritative presences, who necessarily provide valuable perspective and advice to a main character (The Shawshank Redemption; Million Dollar Baby; Driving Miss Daisy; Se7en). Even more telling is that audiences accept Freeman even as he plays God (Bruce Almighty and its ill-fated follow-up effort, Evan Almighty) and Nelson Mandela, for crying out loud. In turn, Freeman has performed some rather marvelous variations on this character type by adding a twist of corruption in films like Lucky Number Slevin and Wanted. His vocal talents are also in demand, and while he’s no James Earl Jones, Freeman’s authoritatively aural abilities have been put to advantageous use by director Christopher Nolan in his contributions to the Batman franchise. Of course, some of Freeman’s resumé entries (such as The Bucket List and Deep Impact) were probably things he did for the money, which is fine in limited supply because a guy has to feed his family. Now, Freeman might be known for often taking the same sort of roles, but he does it damn well, and audiences love him for it. Ultimately, Morgan Freeman carries a great reputation for delivering reliable performances (although some scripts haven’t provided opportunity for such) and an overriding air of trustworthiness.

All of the above should be viewed as a cursory glance of information that can be found within many preexisting articles on other movie sites. So far, this is a fairly uneventful assessment that has merely acknowledged Freeman’s well-regarded stature as an actor with nothing but success in his future. However, this is also a forum to discuss anything that could potentially damage an actor’s career, so it’s not entirely unprecedented to delve into matters of Freeman’s (alleged) personal life. Normally, I do attempt to refrain from inserting personal matters into these assessments — with a few duly noted exceptions such as the insufferable Gwyneth Paltrow and (in a much more restrained sense) Tom Cruise — but the fact of the matter is that, in some instances, audiences are unable (or just unwilling) to separate actors from their performances. To some degree, we as moviewatchers are all a little bit elitist and would presume an unyielding ability to compartmentalize between art and the artists behind the work.

Still, there’s that pesky fine line, which cannot be ignored; this is a topic that Dustin has discussed before in terms of Roman Polanski and Mel Gibson. Freeman’s alleged misdeed — a rumored romantic relationship with his step-granddaughter — could most likely be compared to that of Woody Allen. Again, the rumor hasn’t formally been substantiated but also hasn’t been denied by any of the (allegedly) involved parties; still, if there ends up being any truth to the matter, Freeman potentially has a lot more to lose than the likes of Woody Allen, simply for the fact that Freeman usually plays roles that involve fiduciary relationships. If this should occur, the effect would be highly detrimental to Freeman’s future career and ability to bring in box-office bucks. While it’s true that dating a step-relative isn’t, in and of itself, illegal if both parties are of majority age, it’s also unclear just how much of a role that Freeman played in raising this young woman. If it was a matter of him changing her diapers or even just a very strong emotional bond during formative years, then dating her (even now) would point towards some pretty hardcore perving tendencies. This is particularly the case with an actor like Freeman, whose roles often involve the essence of trustworthiness, for audiences may no longer be able to separate the actor from his work (especially when it comes to an actor who appeared in 780 episodes of a PBS kids’ television program).

Prognosis: Freeman’s acting abilities remain nearly impossible to cut up. Next June, he shall receive a lifetime achievement award from the American Film Institute, which will only further cement his continued success. Still, there’s the aforementioned lingering personal issue that could always muck things up real good. For now, since nobody knows the truth or falsity of the matter, let’s just keep watching those Morgan Freeman movies, shall we?

Agent Bedhead lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She and her little black heart can be found at agentbedhead.com.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Fear of a Black Planet | Black Presidents in Film and Television | I See a Very Strange Film in Your Future | Robert De Niro and Sigourney Weaver as Psychic and Shrink in Red Lights









Comments

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Freeman's character in The Shawshank Redemption is NOT a magical negro. Because his character is wrong.

Posted by: Todd at October 15, 2010 3:49 PM

Morgan Freeman IS a Magical Negro. I am truly ensorcelled by his wonderfulness. And seriously? Do we really care who he screws? A non-blood relative over the age of consent. Whoop de fucking do.

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at October 15, 2010 3:52 PM

His character is wrong... in what sense?

I mean... I'll go along with the premise that Red is not a magical Negro -- but I have different rationale. First being -- he doesn't fucking DO anything to warrant the title. Not in Shawshank. I mean, fuck, he can get things. So? That's his damned JOB. Giving advice to Andy? Well, seems to me, Andy gives HIM far better advice than he gives Andy. Seems to me ANDY is the one that saves HIS sorry ass, in the end.

And what I like best about Red, in the end, is that Freeman was cast colour-blind. Red wasn't written as a black man. And they didn't even bother to change the name. I just love that.

But magical Negro? Not this time.

Actually, that whole magical Negro thing warrants its own discussion... I can see what Todd's saying -- because Red DID it. The magical Negro is a BENIGN Negro. And Red... see, he COMMITTED the crime for which he has been imprisoned. I would think that this would automatically disqualify him for magical Negro status. No, he has not been rendered impotent by his many years in prison, as his final speech to the parole board ought to prove -- especially juxtaposed with the cringing, pleading speeches he has given them in the past.

If that's what you meant by "wrong," Todd -- that he was GUILTY... yeah. I'm with you, there.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at October 15, 2010 4:41 PM

On-screen, Freeman gets away with doing whatever he wants. And it speaks to how embraced he has been by audiences across racial, gender and social lines (something that even actors like Samuel L. Jackson haven't entirely achieved). Morgan Freeman can open a movie for little old ladies (The Bucket List) and for guys (Wanted) in the same year and not suffer whatsoever from a dip in audiences' attitude towards him.

As for the allegations of impropriety, so far they've remained out of the front pages. That allows people to remain comfortable with him. I do wonder if they'll ever move forward. If he's smart and his divorce is amicable, there's a real chance it will never become an issue.

Posted by: Fredo at October 15, 2010 4:42 PM

A non-blood relative over the age of consent. Whoop de fucking do.

This is correct of course, but I think the component that most people feel a little queasy on is the trust role that was violated.

Wonderful actor though. Although he always does a steady and dependable job, I think he particularly shines in small roles by making them feel deeper and more nuanced than they are written. Batman is a perfect example of this - Fox is a great character and leaves an impression far disproportionate to his screen time.

-Frob

Posted by: frobme at October 15, 2010 4:56 PM

His name is Red.
He is colorblind.
People who are colorblind can't see the color red.
The color red appears as the color brown to people who are colorblind.
Red is brown.

I don't know what you're talking about Maryscott O'Conor.

Posted by: superasente at October 15, 2010 5:00 PM

I am almost CERTAIN that the details of Freeman's personal relationships are none of my concern. Where he puts his dick has NOTHING to do with his merits as an actor, and unless he is in violation of some law (and that does not seem to be the case here based on what little I read) it has little bearing on his merits as a man.
Sorry, I am just TERRIBLY weary of the details of people's sex lives being weaponized. Why his sex life figures into a career assessment is beyond me.
/rant

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at October 15, 2010 5:09 PM

Well, seems to me, Andy gives HIM far better advice than he gives Andy. Seems to me ANDY is the one that saves HIS sorry ass, in the end.

That's what I mean about him being wrong. One of the keys to the magical negro stock character is that they ignore any sort of motivation for themselves and just dispense sage advice to the white main character. Except in Shawshank it gets all subverted. Red tries to guide Andy in how to survive but ultimately Andy's philosophy of hope is revealed to be correct. Andy seems to be the main character because he is the one the action revolves around, but really RED is the main character because he is the one who changes as a result of his experiences in the movie.

Posted by: Todd at October 15, 2010 5:11 PM

So I assume out of respect for Mr. Freeman's overall oeuvre we're just not going to mention the piece of crap he's in that's opening this weekend?

Posted by: PaddyDog at October 15, 2010 5:28 PM

Comparing Freeman's rumor to Polanski's CRIME is ridiculous.

Posted by: logan at October 15, 2010 7:34 PM

Hey, that reminds me: Whatever happened to Louis Gossett Jr.?

*check filmography*

Oh my holy God.

*bows head*

Posted by: , at October 15, 2010 8:06 PM

I'm sorry, but if you can look at THIS:

http://www.thesuperficial.com/morgan_freeman_caught_in_inces-06-2009

...and tell me that's not pretty creepy, there is probably something wrong with you.

Posted by: jvon at October 15, 2010 8:37 PM

Pfft. The man is 73. He doesn't have that many roles ahead of him anyway. He doesn't have to care what any audience thinks.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at October 16, 2010 12:41 AM

Dude, Morgan Freeman lives in Mississippi; how much could he have left on his mortgage that The Bucket List had to happen?

Posted by: Jerry at October 16, 2010 4:32 AM

I am so not clicking that link. Ignorance is bliss.

La la la I can't hear you!

Posted by: stopthemadness at October 16, 2010 4:40 AM

That said, I am kind of sad for the state of the black actor. I mean, from the breakthrough that was Sidney Poitier in the sixties, we go through the gods of blaxploitation in the seventies with Melvin Peebles, RIchard Roundtree, and Jim Brown, and what we come out the other end with is the lingering lights of the Negro Ensemble who were more known for their stage work and character roles in films (leaving out A Soldier's Story, which was itself simply a vehicle for aforementioned stage actors). and at the other end, we shake out Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson, and Denzel Washington (we have to pass over Danny Glover for his regrettable association with Mel Gibson and its inherent Step-n-Fetchit overtones). We should be further along than this somehow.

Well, I guess Spike Lee can start rolling out film versions of the August Wilson plays. At least Charles Dutton, Brian Stokes Mitchell, and all the black actors coming out of Yale Rep can get a few more props before Denzel and Samuel hit retirement age and all that's left are third generation Wayans offspring.

Posted by: Jerry at October 16, 2010 4:43 AM


"We have to pass over Danny Glover for his regrettable association with Mel Gibson and its inherent Step-n-Fetchit overtones"

I find it telling that you eschew his associations with Dictatorial socialist thugs like Chavez and Castro and penchant wild conspiracy theories like Earthquakes being caused by global warming in favor of, what, a subservient role opposite another, slightly crazier nut job?

Glover is all kinds of crazy.

Posted by: Some Guy at October 16, 2010 11:45 AM

In Shawshank, he may not be magical to the other characters in the reality of the film, but relative to the relationships that the other characters have to the audience ... he's the Magical Negro.

... to us. He talks to us. He's wise ... to us. He imparts wisdom about Andy and Brooks and prison life ... to us.

Posted by: mograph at October 16, 2010 1:40 PM

Enough with the magical Negro thing.

Will smith in the golf movie sure...
Morgan Freeman in Shawshank? Hell No

He plays a man. One who happens to be black. That man has incridible depth, character, and he happens to be the most dynamic in the film. To play him off as "The magical Negro" of the film demeans the talent the actor put into an amazing character, and the character himself who was incredibly well written.

Are there roles that in themselves are pompous towards African Americans? Of course. Call them out on their Magical Negroness. But when you are willing to lump well written well acted characters, with incredible purpose toward great films into that category, well then you've turned your own sanctimonious attitude against phenomenal actors and characters, simply because they happen to be black. Condescension is one thing, but don't let smugness make you an asshole.


On that note...Freeman's God? Total Magical Negro.

Posted by: Blank at October 16, 2010 2:04 PM

He was kind of hilarious and charming in 10 Items or Less. Worth checking out.

Posted by: MyySharona at October 17, 2010 7:12 AM

Remember when Roc and his wife couldn't decide on whether to name the baby Marcus or Shakka?

Deus ex black-ina!

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at October 17, 2010 7:26 PM

There were many African Americans, including Spike Lee, who had a real problem with Freeman in Driving Miss Daisy. It could be positide that in reality all he does is the same "House Negro" role for white audiances again and again, less a "Magical Negro" and more a more a "Safe Negro".

But hey we as a society just weren't advanced enough yet during his career rise, I guess and somebody has to be the smiling "Uncle Ben". Maybe the US needed him so they could envision a black president. That make make him more a "Special Negro" or maybe a "Small Step Negro".

Or maybe he's just a black character actor with a little talent and a cunning sence of how we as culture relate to race and it's not his taking the roles that defines our relationship to him, but our spending the money to see him in them.

Posted by: ChuckFilm at October 19, 2010 9:36 AM