User Reviews (18)

Add a Review

  • Obviously hampered by a small "independent" budget and the casting of James Whitmore (a fine stage actor who, unlike the original author of the book, John Howard Griffin, simply cannot believably pass for a black man) in the lead, director Carl Lerner's screenplay (co-written with Gerda Lerner and an uncredited Paul Green) shuns Griffin's chronological story telling through dated diary entries and rearranges the events Griffin told so well to surprisingly LESS dramatic effect, but it gives a movingly honest portrayal of life in the South near the start of the long over-due civil rights movement.

    The year this film was released my (white) family was transferred to a suburb of Atlanta, Ga. from a Virginia suburb of Washington D.C., and enroute we were stunned to see Klansmen in full regalia out on the interstate in North Carolina inspecting cars coming down from the north. It was just one of those things one had to live with at the time - like civil rights workers being murdered and their killers, when caught, being acquitted by all white juries - but this film manages, despite honestly showing the unremitting low grade caution every black person had to live with, and the blatant racism of a few Southern whites, to also be fair to the majority which was merely oblivious to - and sometimes even quietly disapproving of the evil around them - who wouldn't intentionally hurt a black person.

    This well meaning majority,unintentionally perpetuating what they saw as "something they couldn't do anything about," eventually came around - and the book helped, even if the movie went largely unseen.

    One of the most effecting - but at the same time least persuasive - sections of the film comes late, when Whitmore/Griffin's character tries to justify his actions to a rising young black activist (excellently played to type by Al Freeman Jr.). As it turned out, Griffin's book actually did help in the long struggle for equality, bringing the reality of a shame to the attention of the rest of the nation which needed the reminder as it demanded and helped the South come into the 20th Century, but the film only touches on the screams of outrage from the South at the mirror being held up so honestly to something they did not wish to see.

    This was only a few years after the "Stars and Bars" (the old Confederate Battle Flag alluded to so effectively in the opening credits of this film) was pointedly added to the Georgia state flag in protest to Federal Civil Rights legislation. Bigots (self identifying and otherwise) called it an emblem of "local pride and heritage" - realists saw it for what it was in the modern usage and timing: a symbol of hate, rebellion and intimidation.

    Times really have changed radically in the 40+ years since this film was made, and today the movie is chiefly valuable as a document of what life was like in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia during Griffin's all too brief (one month) sojourn on the other side of the color barrier. The street scenes and home details are perfectly observed. As one who lived through the period, I can testify the film is not over stated politically or socially.

    The movie BLACK LIKE ME does not portray "every white person as a bigot" (though in my years growing up in the South, I never met a bigot who self-identified as one), but it does show how a rotten few can intimidate a complacent majority on any issue. As we let some politicians play "the terror card" to suspend out liberties in the 21st Century, or the pseudo-"religious" and "guilt by association cards" to deny the right to marriage to significant parts of the population at a time when stable relationships are in society's best interest, it is perhaps a lesson worth remembering. The sad thing is that for the most part, the only people who will bother to watch this flawed but decent film are for the most part the ones who already know.
  • teacherdan28 June 2007
    The person who claimed this is a movie about "reverse racism" must be so young that he can't remember those times. I grew up in the 50's and 60's in the south. The movie portrays the prevailing attitude of whites toward blacks in an accurate manner. I can remember the separate waiting rooms, water fountains, "white only," etc. Thankfully, I grew up in a home where racial prejudice was not tolerated, and I'm sure there were a lot of homes like this.

    In the book, Griffin passes through the same area as a black and then a white. The difference in his treatment was appalling. What the movie shows is that racial prejudice makes no sense. All people are simply people and deserve to be treated with respect.
  • cedrickroberts8 April 2011
    This is a good movie but the book is better. In the book the emotions unfold over a longer period of time which is more realistic. The premise of both (without spoilers): white journalist darkens skin in order to appear black and details his experiences as a black man in the south in a book. Therein lies the problem. Griffin's life as a white man is not erased by the darkening of his skin. For example, in both the book and the movie, Griffin looks for normalcy in activities that blacks during that time period were aware would result in hostility. Going into white neighborhoods attempting to get change in stores. Offensive conversations in cars with whites while hitch hiking, etc. To be clear, blacks were definitely angered by any indignities caused by these experiences. However many of the blacks during that time period never had the privileges that Griffin had had all of his life. My point is that Griffin's anger reaches a crescendo at a quick pace because of a life of white privilege suddenly hindered by dark skin. Blacks cared about daily indignities but always with a concern over the larger political and social institutions and structures that created them. The book and the movie are accurate in many ways, but they represent merely a snapshot of a much larger scheme.
  • This movie mostly follows the book closely, but Whitmore's performance gives it an altogether different tone. Instead of portraying Griffin's experience realistically, he's just angry throughout the film. As Griffin himself noted, that kind of behavior would never have been tolerated by the Southerners. Yet Whitmore blusters along, talking back and actually threatening at times. I found that this really detracted from the message of the book, and the film fails to convey the despondence that overcame Griffin after the full realization of his experiment. Whitmore also makes Griffin look naive, uneducated, and speaks in a grating northern accent. In conclusion, the film is okay, and relatively true to the book, if you ignore Whitmore's out-of-place angry delivery.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The phrase well-intentioned has been utilized in pretty much every review that I have read of this movie whether it be through IMDb or other professional critical review sites. That is for certain, coming out at a time when perhaps such a portrayal was necessary, but sadly, nearly 60 years later, this has lost much of its impact simply based on the fact that one of the greatest white actors of the Twentieth Century, James Whitmore, gives a sincere performance, but unfortunately, in the dark makeup, he looks closer to Jim Backus in dark makeup then he does either as himself or a real black man. Yes, he tries to tan his skin through a sun lamp, and of course, that is not going to make even the slightest impact. So on with the shoe polish and it's as if Al Jolson and Eddie Cantor have come back to do a non-musical and present a social drama that proves just the opposite of the tagline. Never in 250 years could a white man ever know what it feels to be black.

    Spontaneous mistreatment a couple of times does not indicate an education in the issues of the social injustices black people face, and it would make more sense for someone to call him out for trying to pass and looking almost ridiculous. We're supposed to believe that a black shoe shiner doesn't recognize Whitmore as a regular customer even with much darker skin. It's even more insulting when he asks him how to treat him to act more realistic, even after he explains what his intentions are. But it resorts back to stereotypical attitudes that change here and there, especially when the shoe shiner is confronted by a white man looking for fun with a black woman. It's the introduction to whitmore's education, and certainly, he will come out knowing a little bit about being black, but it barely touches the surface as it reaches 4 uncomfortable truths.

    What this film is memorable for outside of the intentions is the ensemble of New York based stage actors, playing a variety of characters, and that includes Lenka Peterson as Whitmore's wife, Will Geer, Robert Gerringer, Roscoe Lee Browne, Al Freeman Jr., Sorrell Books and Thelma Oliver. I guess this story had to be told as it was based on a true event, written as a best-selling book, and much later on resulting with the author being beaten as a racial betrayer for doing his research. I'm hoping that his makeup was more realistic than what goes on here, and the film should be lauded for making an attempt. But there were other films made around the same time that dealt with racial issues more realistically, and while not a total embarrassment, it's not the classic that the people involved believed it would become.
  • kapelusznik1824 September 2014
    Warning: Spoilers
    ***SPOILERS*** What looks like a re-make of the ground breaking movie "Gentelmen's Aggrement" about a gentile reporter posing as a Jew in order to get the info on anti-Semitism in America the film "Black like Me" has white Texas reporter John Horton, James Whitmore, go the full nine yards in making himself look black to write a in depth story about racism in America. That with Horton taking massive amounts of skin blackening pills and countless hours of sun lamp treatments to look black and blend in with the black population in the deep south and see just how it is to be one of them.

    Horton despite his black skin doesn't have any black or African features which make him look very out of place. His blackness keeps changing from dark to medium to light throughout the film without anyone in the cast ever noticing it! There's also Horton's perfect English speaking voice, like that of a collage professor, that at times, unlike his artificial black skin, almost gives him away to both the blacks as well as whites that he associates with in the movie. Still in trying to find out the black experience Horton does suffer discrimination among whites for being black as well as blacks, at the end of the movie, for being white when it's discovered that he's really white not black. In fact it was the resentment that Horton got from his former black friends that was far worse then from whites despite that he was on their side of the issues!

    One of the strangest encounters that Horton had in the movie is when he was befriended by a white collage student Charles Maynard, Alan Bergmann, who was doing his PHD dissertation on black/white relations in America. Having a few drinks in his hotel room a drunk and uninhibited Maynard ,to Horton's total disgust, tried to make a drunken pass on Horton as well as have him show or compare his, for a better word , manhood with that of his own! Horton seeing that he's dealing not with a serious student on the subject of race relations but a die in the wool, far worse then even a racist, sexual degenerate almost ended up strangling Maynard who pleaded for his life by claiming that he's not a "queer"!.

    By the time the film was over Horton came to realize that the differences between the races wasn't just the color of their skin but the ingrained attitudes that they, like himself, had developed about each other over the years ever since they were almost out of their cribs. Going back to the "White World" from where he came from Horton slowly began to realize that just by him being black doesn't quite cut it in either the black or white communities in America. It's understanding that their is a difference between the two in not only color but lifestyles and environment-besides being discriminated against- which most liberals like himself are blind to and have completely overlooked!
  • John Howard Griffin was a white reporter who darken his skin to experience life as a black man in the deep South. This is based on his book. John Finley Horton (James Whitmore) from Texas wants to write a series of articles on integration for Eli Carr (Clifton James) but he's afraid of the repercussions. He gets treatments of pills and tanning lamps to darken his skin. Along the way, he reveals the truth to shoeshine Burt Wilson (Richard Ward) and gets his help to pass.

    "I changed the color of my skin... now I know what it feels like to be BLACK!" They couldn't get away with that tagline today. No matter how well the disguise, the color doesn't come off of a black man at the end of the day. Its heart is in the right place, but James Whitmore looks like a darkened white man. The eyes are one problem and he needs a good pair of sunglasses. The other problem is that it isn't always a compelling movie. There are scenes of eye opening racism. There are also weird little scenes about race relations. It's put together like a series of disconnected vignettes. As a movie, it doesn't really flow and the acting sometimes fall into melodrama territories. It's still interesting to watch.
  • "Black Like Me" is a real story. It was written by a white man who dealt with the South in a time when this treatment towards black people took place. How can you call it reverse racism. You need to read the book to understand it better. It is written by a white man who went through this experience himself. His name is John Howard Griffin. He felt that it was needed to see the perspective of a black person and by doing so he made himself black. It was a rough time for black people during those years in the U.S., especially in the South. I think he did a great job writing the book and I like this movie a lot. It's hard to find, but I have it on DVD recorded from cable.
  • Unfortunately, the quality of this movie was hindered by the poor production values of the period, as well as a low budget. This is the true story of John Howard Griffin (in the movie referred to as John Finley Horton, a Caucasian man who cared enough about the issues of racism that he put himself and his family in danger by posing as an African American man who traveled through the then racist Deep South of the United States in the late 1950's. The movie does not entirely succeed in capturing the terror, the weariness, the lack of dignity, and the outright hatred experienced by the lead character simply because of the color of his skin. However, seeing this movie should stimulate one's curiosity enough to read the book, one of the best and most disturbing I have ever read and whose message is still relevant today And for those of you poor souls who believe that this movie is little more than an example of "reverse racism," I suggest you consult a dictionary because there is no such term.
  • fakealbren8 January 2007
    the person who said that this book is an example of reverse racism probably didn't even read this book. In fact this book shows himself, a white man, as a person who is not racist at all. There are also friends that he meets that are not racist and are white. The person clearly didn't read the book who made this comment. Anyways its a great movie from this book and the movie doesn't portray the white man as being evil and racist, just a history of the south at that time, especially since the narrator is white!! Anyways i suggest that you go out of your way and rent this movie or rent this book because it is indeed an "EYE OPENING" movie! Don't be fooled but what other people who have claimed to have seen this movie and/or seen this book say about it. trust me on this on guys.....

    But i do suggest reading the book before seeing the movie because the book is a bit better than the movie, typical though.
  • For starters, I certainly don't condone vicious, hateful racism, but, with that said, I flatly refuse to accept that the guy in this movie was either black like me, or black like you, or black like anybody, for that matter.

    In fact, I honestly don't think that he (with the white of his neck clearly showing under the back of his collar) was black like anything else that I've ever seen on the face of this Earth. He really wasn't.

    And, if he really thought that he was black like me, or like you, or like anybody else, then I'd say he certainly had a rude awakening coming his way or else he'd better check himself into the nearest asylum, like pronto, for a spell.

    (Seriously, folks!) I found James Whitmore's portrayal of a white man posing as a black man to be just about the most laughable impersonation ever recorded on film that I've ever seen.

    It's a damn good thing that this picture was filmed in black & white, otherwise Whitmore's baby-blue eyes and smudgy, grease-painted, minstrel-show face would've been completely impossible for the viewer to accept at face value and, thus, keep a straight face at the same time.

    But, with that aside, the fact that all of the characters (whether they were black or white) in this film's story totally accepted (without the slightest hesitation) Whitmore's character as being a bona-fide "knee-grow" clearly made them all out to be some of the absolutely most stupidest people (whatever their race) on the face of this whole wide world, bar none.

    Hey, folks! I'm really, really trying to be fair-minded here, but, the truth is, even if I were clinically blind, Whitmore (with his blotchy make-up) couldn't have fooled me for even a split second that he was a "black-like-me" dude. Never!

    Yes. I do realize that this 1964 film was probably made with the best of intentions in mind. But, in order for it to have raised the awareness of ignoramuses regarding such pressing issues (then & now) as prejudice and racial violence, this decidedly low-budget production clearly required 2 essential elements necessary to guarantee its commercial/social success. And those 2 essential elements missing from "Black Like Me" were (1) having a heart & (2) having a soul. It had neither.

    Yeah-Yeah. I know I could certainly go on and on here, beefing & bitching about this & that (especially about Whitmore's character deliberately blowing his cover far too often) - But, in closing, there's just one more thought about racism/segregation that I'd like to add (with all solemnity) to this here review.

    After what "Black Like Me" clearly showed me in regards to the harmonious and good-will atmosphere that seemed to prevail in the ghettos of the blacks who were living in the south-eastern States (circa 1964) - Shabby as these places were, I personally think that blacks were probably much better off segregated into their ghettos, than were whites living in ghettos of an equal standing.

    Well, hey, at least blacks, in all of their ghetto-poverty, could rightfully point an accusing finger at the whites for being the ones who initially put them there.

    Where, on the other hand, whites living in ghettos had absolutely no one to blame but themselves for their state of dire poverty and destitution. I mean, no one can ever say that it was blacks who forced whites into this ghetto-situation.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "It's a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity." - William DuBois ("The Souls of Black Folk")

    Journalist John Griffin published "Black Like Me" in 1961. The book detailed Griffin's six-week experience posing as a black man whilst travelling across the racially segregated states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia. The book would be adapted for the screen in 1964. Written and directed by Carl and Gerda Lerner – notable civil rights activists, communists and historians – this adaptation starred James Whitmore as Griffin.

    "Black Like Me" works as an interesting time capsule. We're taken down real 1960s streets and into real Southern towns, homes, shops and dance-halls. It's a bit like looking at a Gordon Parks photo-album (a notable black photographer famous for his portraits of Southern life), albeit without the compositional power.

    Elsewhere the film offers several interesting, politically charged vignettes, like scenes in which black characters articulate their self-hatred, their shame, or explain the cunning tactics necessary for survival. One car ride finds Griffin encountering a man who has sex with black women to "purify inferior bloodlines", whilst another sees him encountering a white academic with a fondness for scientific racism. Other scenes point to the various forms of prejudice, bigotry and socioeconomic marginalisation habitually experienced by blacks.

    Years after his book was published, Griffin was dragged from his car and beaten by white attackers who accused him of being a "race traitor". His book, powerful and well written, would anticipate the "non-fiction novel" genre, a genre Truman Capote is usually (wrongfully) credited with founding. Unfotunately little in "Black Like Me" (1964) approaches the quality of Griffin's novel. The film's didactic, polemical aspects are not a problem - indeed, the film is at its best when being polemical - but these qualities are constantly undermined by an intrusive flashback structure, a lethargic script, and a plot which wastes too much time on Griffin's "white" home life.

    6/10 - Worth one viewing.
  • edwagreen17 May 2017
    10/10
    ****
    Warning: Spoilers
    Though looking quite ridiculous, James Whitmore turned in an impressive performance about a reporter who turns his skin black and goes to live in the south to witness firsthand as a black man the bigotry directed towards black people.

    Whitmore's character experiences an identity crisis feeling as he is subjected to a variety of prejudices from all sorts of people who he comes into contact with.

    We have a very similar idea to the Laura Z. Hobson's "Gentleman's Agreement," where a writer pretended to be Jewish to see firsthand the ugly effects of anti-Semitism.

    Whitmore is subjected to just about everything. Even his questioning by a prospective Ph.D candidate who is doing a cross-study study is cultural, especially the doctoral candidate becomes drunk and says things that an educated person is not expected to say.

    This is a compelling firm. Even the black family who he lives with while passing himself off as black, is irritated when they find out that he is really Caucasian.
  • This is another case of the truth being skewed by lies. The is a great example of reverse racism. All white people must be hateful and go out of their way to put the black man in their place. So if you are white you are spiteful and hateful and if you black then you are easy going and care about everyone and everything. Come on we have to wake up and smell the coffee. I am white and I have never said a unkind word to anyone. If you watch these "eye opening" movies then me being white am just a hateful person. Movies like these are designed to put down the white man as nothing more then just spending his days trying to find new ways of putting down another race. Wake up and see that not every white person is racist.
  • James Whitmore gives a good performance as a white man who is given medical treatments to turn the pigmentation of his skin to resemble that of an African American. Based on the fine book by John Howard Griffin he heads off to the south to see what being a black person in the U.S. is like.

    The film recently aired on AMC. It is somewhat dated and Whitmore doesn't appear to be any thing other than a Caucasian with dark make up on. The film nonetheless is quite good as it examines his journey through the south. He encounters prejudice at virtually every stop. The film tends to lag at certain points but still delivers a powerful story. Read the book first then see this early 60's picture
  • This is the sleepy South as it really was. The pace is deliberate but necessarily so. The direction and acting is gritty and real.

    The anger was real. The prejudice was real. The hate was real. The fear was real. The pain was real. It really happened this way.

    This movie shows us all that. We walk in the shoes of a white man who looks like a black man...but we will never know. We can only imagine like James Whitmore's character, John Horton. We can only imagine what a man or woman had to endure in the unilluminated history of the United States.

    Seeing this, we know, though we have come quite some distance, that we have still a long way to go before the reality is but a memory.

    I salute all of those involved in this film and Mr. John Howard Griffin who endured it all and let us know the cruelty of man and helped us open our eyes.
  • For you people who don't know. This movie is based on a book by John Howard Griffin. In real life he dressed like a black man in 1959 and went about in Mississippi for five or six weeks. During this time he also went as himself a white-man, in order to compare certain scenarios. He was treated differently as a black man because that is how the white people decided to treat him. Not because he told them to, not because he did anything wrong. That's just how he was treated. The movie just happens to show what his experiences were. For all the people who believe racism doesn't exist just because they aren't racist (or at least said anything racist out loud) you aren't living in reality or at least America. True it isn't as blatant now as it was then it is real. So if you don't like this movie fine. But don't let your ignorance of how the world (or at least America)works be your reason for not liking this movie.
  • Griffin's book, which I highly recommend reading, is not well reflected in this movie. The book is an important one- the movie failed to portray the events deeply and meaningfully. While the book draws one into the experience and emotion of one living as an Arfican-American in the South during this time, the film leaves one feeling little more than a disconnected witness of a poor narration.

    Poorly directed, poorly cast, abysmally lit and acted, often to the extent that Griffin's message is lost in the morass. At times the director has taken such creative license as to change Griffin's character, adding nothing, distracting from the premise and in so doing disconnects the viewer from the protagonists world.This movie screams to be remade as the important bridge in cultural understanding that the book remains.