Talk:Monster's Ball

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

I altered the text in the summary from: In facing these hurdles, Leticia drinks frequently and is thereby unable to pay her bills, leading to an eviction notice. to: Along with her domestic problems, she also struggles financially, leading to the loss of the family car and more seriously, an eviction notice on her house.

I made the change because there's no clear message that Leticia drinks frequently, now or in the past, or that her drinking is part of her financial difficulties at all. I also think it's important to point out the loss of her car as her inability to pay for the car's maintenance, as well as her house payments, were both discussed in the scene when she visits her husband in prison. The loss of the car was what led her to choose to walk home the night her son was killed and both the loss of the car and the house are the only real signs she is in a bad financial situation anyway.

I also changed the sentence Leticia, despite having uncovered Hank's complicity in her husband's death, decides to stay with him. to: '''Leticia, despite having uncovered Hank's involvement in her husband's death, decides to stay with him."

'Involvement' is a more neutral term than 'complicity'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaian-Orlanthii (talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Racism paragraph needs sources
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)


 * The whole controversy section sounds like a newspaper blowing something out of proportion... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a partial reply to the above.

I had considered writing a nonfiction manuscript regarding the controvery around Halle Berry and Monster's Ball; this has been temporarily shelved due to another project. I have also interviewed one of the screenwriters before stopping work.

Most of the comments I summarized came from African American websites such as BET (Black Entertainment Television), SeeingBlack.com, BlackVoices.com, and even from the Monster's Ball film webpage itself. Therefore, there are not specific writers, per se, as many of them wrote in anonymously and using cover names, but black detractors of the film were legion. One in particular was the syndicated film reviewer and columnist Esther Iverem, who seemed to spearhead one attack on Berry.

I have seen the webpage where it is alleged that Berry is actually making love to Thornton. I am not sure whether it still exists, and I no longer have the actual link.

These are not weasel terms; these are comments that are based the facts of the responses I saw from 2001-2003. The responses, however, have probably been erased from the archives, but these exchanges did exist, and I still have downloaded copies of them.

It's too bad that I did not see these responses sooner. I think that you both are standing on shakier ground than you think.

gtdanyelz--66.190.63.70 02:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This entire section should be deleted. Anonymous comments on message boards cannot be verified, and the Iverem article (citation #4) itself is mostly based on the author reading message boards.Kuzmatt9 16:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

not wiki-worthy
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)

re: 'not Wiki-worthy,' 'tacky edits,' and 'racism paragraph needs sources,' respectively
These views were relevant to a lot of black people. Whether they really are the views of a minority or not, these views are based on issues within the black community: one of which is the sexual exploitation of black women, and furthermore, how much volition a black woman may actually possess today in choosing her sexual/love partners. No doubt, sexual fear and jealousy and separatist views abounded in this discussion. However, they needed to be aired, no matter how ridiculous they may seem. Apparently, some people persist in being willfully ignorant and threaten rewrites rather than conduct competent research on views by African Americans about the film during that time. Instead, they say nothing of the kind happened, or that the criticism was overblown and or not to be believed or only confined to a 'small minority.' Apparently, you must have little experience with the Black Net or black news sources, film critics or discussion boards.

What strikes me is that some of you take umbrage that there was this kind of negative blowback from the black community about the film, and that only this is what makes their feelings 'invalid' in your eyes.

What seems to be missing, I see, are positive responses by blacks who saw the film. In the near future, I will try to update the piece regarding their views. However, I want to be frank: I remain supportive of the film and of the characters and in particular, Halle Berry's performance.

The piece about Raphael Picaud has been removed. However, I did say, in previous remarks, that he may have been taking advantage of the situation to promote his own business and views.

One more thing: I briefly interviewed two elderly black women exiting the multiplex theatre where Monster's Ball was being run in upstate New York. One woman rolled her eyes skyward when I asked her whether she liked the film, when she signified that "Georgia sure has changed a lot." Shall I explain to you all what signification means?

gtdanyelz--66.188.129.20 21:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What seems to be missing, I see, are positive responses by blacks who saw the film.


 * Probably because there weren't any. Since we're going to be blacker-than-thou-art, I'll just point out that I am also African-American, and attended an HBCU at the time of the wins. The truth is that Monster's Ball was not particularly well-received by the black community, and is commonly referred to as "Massa's Balls" - and that's just from the people who even bothered to see the movie.


 * And ask yourself if people were truly happy that Halle Berry won a Best Actress Oscar, or that a black woman finally won a Best Actress Oscar. I happened to be writing for my college rag at the time (I called Berry's win a disgrace and an insult to black Hollywood, and I stick by that), and I happened to stop and poll/interview a LOT of my fellow students. Most of them admitted they'd never saw the movie but was happy for Halle, and those who HAD and was happy for Halle admitted that they wished she'd gotten it for a different role. (BAPS, maybe?) PennyGWoods 13:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe the possibility that if there is an African American who makes any sort of positive comment about anything about this movie, they will get shouted down by those who feel the need to be politically correct. It's too bad that there are some who can't get past their knee jerk reaction to see that there is more to this story than interracial sex. It shows me that people still have a strong prejudice against interracial couples in America...and that people judge black women and their sexuality a lot more harshly than they do white women who do the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.186.87 (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No controversy about Denzel and Jamie?
"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)

re 'I took out this line' and Denzel

 * 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)


 * Please read this. Danny Lilithborne 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to respond to you via e-mail
I'd like to know why you have added this link for my information.

I took out this line
"and that a black woman's body (and its exposure) 'belongs' exclusively to a black man (husband, lover and even a father or a brother, and to the community), but not to herself."

This is the most offensive and unoffended statement that I have read on this page. It has no proof and no evidence to support that black men or black women feel this way about their body's. I don't know who wrote this statement, but it sounds like someone who was extremely ignornant and clearly subjective in their thoughts.

Outside of this movie's controversial sex scene
This movie was poorly acted by Berry. Edit out the sex scene and you have a bad movie with a terrible actress. That's the real issue to me. The controversy should have been why did she get an oscar for horrible acting.

sexually explicit
"The film won Halle Berry the Academy Award for Best Actress despite its graphic depiction of sexual intercourse. This was a rare instance in which the Academy awarded a film with sexually explicit content."

I have some problems with the wording on this: 1. It makes it sound like the movie is porn with words like "graphic depiction of sexual intercourse" and "sexually explicit content." I don't remember the movie well, and I realize there were sex scenes (that is, simulated sex scenes), but I don't remember seeing anything "graphic" or "explicit." 2. Although I haven't seen all of the following films, I've heard that Holly Hunter in the Piano, Gwyneth is Shakespeare, and Charlize in "Monster" all had sex scenes in their movies and they all won Best Actress. How does this make Halle Berry's situation to be rare? The entire paragraph should be deleted or reworded with something like, "Arguably, Halle Berry's Oscar-Winning role is has the most realistic portrayal of sex in a movie." Jbm867 17:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a very VERY good point.


 * I've seen Shakespeare in Love. Gwyneth's boobs are so...innocent looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.123.126 (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what it was was that in the sex scene she shows almost everything and she won an award. Other sex scenes were less intense, I think. People seem to ignore the fact that Billy Bob Thornton is also naked in the sex scenes and shows off a lot, too! 156.34.209.239 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And Glenda Jackson got an Oscar for Women in Love (film) noted as the first such award for a role including a nude scene, (and one of the first mainstream films to feature full-frontal male nudity). -- Beardo (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

response to sexually explicit
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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gtdanyelz (talk • contribs) 01:00, June 13, 2006 (UTC)

just another opinion-- the scene was so long and raw that i walked out of the film-- twice.

I timed the sex scene in this movie, and it is exactly 4 minutes in length. There are other movie with scenes longer than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.186.87 (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF MOVIES
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)

I have removed the "Factual Note" and following POV statement which follow the above quote "(Factual note: At Auschwitz-Birkenau, nobody ever went into the crematorium alive; they were killed with cyanide gas first; bodies were put into ovens by Jewish Sondercommandos, not SS officers)" The reason is that "to shove" is not exclusive to living things, one could "shove" a dead body, and also the clarification regarding what rank or status of Nazi guards were involved in this is unreferenced. The following comment, "It should be noted that comparing the death of an innocent victim of a mass genocidal campaign to the execution of a man convicted of murder is highly dubious." is POV.RomaC 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Line-by-line criticism of criticism
Someone has to place the "factual notes" left defending the film against criticism in a different paragraph; right now it looks unprofessional and biased. 169.232.213.200

Error in plot summary?
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 16:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oscar win
I can't believe no one mentioned that Berry's win was the FIRST for a black woman in that category. Thats what caused the uproar. Black women had been snubbed for decades of this award and when one finally wins it, its for portraying a black woman with animalistic character. --Shopp85 11/16/07

Acclaim and controversy
I have problems with the following statement below in bold. I understand the point, but whomever wrote this did a poor job of expressing it and I take offense. Yes, there are certain stereotypes of black women but very rarely have I heard the stereotypes listed below in association with black women. I believe the writer may think the stereotypes that black women marry criminals, work menial jobs, and fall in bed with any man are typical stereoypes but they are not. So let's not generalize and say many people hold those stereotypes of black women when they may be just the writers own stereotypes.

"The film won Halle Berry the Academy Award for Best Actress in 2001. Berry's role was described as breaking the stereotype of African-American women—she was not a hooker or drug addict—but in some ways it fits the mold: She was the wife of a criminal; she was emotionally damaged by his execution; she had a menial job; and she related to a new man by falling into bed with him. She was also a mother of questionable competence, whose son is morbidly obese and dies soon after he appears in the film."

As far as acclaim and controversy go over the portrayal of an African American woman and a white man. Who the hell cares any more? Really should anyone who wasn't in any of these situation even comment? It is a story of a man and a woman who have crappy lives, due to outside influence as well as their own faults. You can even go so far as to say it s jut a story about two people. Their lives sucked and due to nothing more than hope, blind luck and perseverence they survive and a little hope comes back into their lives. As far as that man saying that this is akin to a Jewish woman falling into the arms of a Nazi officer who killed or helped to execute a family member. That is Bullshit, the man executed was a criminal and was executed for his crimes. The movie never addresses the validity of the execution, or the state of the convictions against the condemned man. The film has nothing to do with that part of their histories. It has to do with the present and the after effects of the issues during the first few minutes of the film and the issues beforehand.

"NPOV" edits
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)

Won for the sex scene?
So in the opening paragraph it says that Halle Berry won the Oscar for her performance and for her sex scene with Thorton. She won simply for the performance, the sex scene is just part of the performance. That should be changed. Thank you.

Incorrect implication from critic Esther Iverem
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)
 * 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)

Prison Location
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)


 * 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)

Landlord
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)