This film start slowly and at times is a little dull but this is mainly due to the lacklustre performance of Mr Combes, P Diddy, Puffy whatever. Every other performance is superb and this is what carries the film, however as others have already commented, what could have been an excellent film, with someone else in the lead role, becomes just a good film and I would still recommend it for anyone to watch. Combes performance is just not believable, sure he is moody and unlikeable but you get the feeling that he struggles to move away from his real persona and slips too easily back into being a 90s rapper rather than a black man struggling in 1950s America. It might be worth noting that if you hate the modern trend for films to be littered with foul language, sex and violence then you will love this film because it stays true to the original play in this regard and has resisted the mistake many remakes have made of modernising it and alienating the family audience. So for many reasons I would recommend this film and just think it is a shame another, much better lead actor was not chosen for the main male role.
Add a Review
-
les696916 August 2010
-
ram-3025 February 2008P-Diddy's performance in the film is P-thetic. Apparently tired of saying the same words night after night on stage has dulled Mr. Combs into a stunned stupor to which his bland expressions and monotone delivery attest. He seems at home with "da Homies" (Willy Harris and Bobo) at "da Club"(The Green Hat) but he can't switch his New York gangsta talk with a Southside Chicago accent. The fact that Willy Harris is a dead ringer for Snoop Dog didn't help. Mama was right; Walter does look (and sound) "like somebody's hoodlum". Mama, by the way, played by Phylicia Rashad, was amazing. She looks younger than other Lena Youngers on screen which is good as Walter is only 35 so Mama is probably not the white haired old lady directors like Daniel Petrie tried to make her look. Besides the youthful look, Rashad gives a very heartfelt performance making me think that Bill Cosby did the world a disfavour by holding her back from honing her serious side. Audra McDonald, in my opinion, is the best performer in the group. As wife Ruth, she really hits home with her every emotion.When she cries, we want to cry with her although at times it seems she's just crying at the atrocious performance by her lesser half, the Puffster. Rounding out the cast is David Oyelowo as the Nigerian Asagai (Oyelowo is, himself, Nigerian) and John Stamos as a handsome Mr. Lindner (alas, the not so handsome John Fiedler is no longer available for the role). I watched this film continually thinking what heights it might have reached if someone more competent was in the Walter role. Maybe they can use Computer Generation to insert Sidney Poitier's performance. That would be great.
-
Isaac585526 February 2008A RAISIN IN THE SUN is the 2nd television remake of the 1961 film based on the play by Lorraine Hansberry and the recent Broadway revival about broken dreams that centers on the Younger family, a hard-working black family living in a cramped Chicago tenement in 1959, to whom we are introduced to the day before the family is to receive a $10,000.00 insurance check and the tensions that arise from the plans that the young patriarch of the family has already made for money that really isn't his. Lena Younger (Phylicia Rachad) is a strong,God-fearing woman who has worked as a housekeeper to a white family for years but has decided to retire because of her impending windfall (the check is only coming because of the death of Lena's husband). Walter Lee Younger (Executive Producer Sean "Puffy" Combs)is a chauffeur who wants to use Lena's money to start his own business. Walter's wife, Ruth (Audra McDonald)is a strong-willed woman who finds herself constantly torn between her husband and her mother-in-law, often at the expense of her son Travis(Justin Martin). Beneatha (Sanaa Lathan) is Walter's flighty, free-spirited sister, struggling to find her identity as a black woman, full of more dreams than she can handle, which are further complicated by her relationships with two completely different kind of men. This story first hit theaters in 1961 with Sidney Poiter as Walter Lee, Ruby Dee as Ruth, and Claudia McNeill as Lena. Combs has brought the cast of the highly successful Broadway revival (which won Tony Awards for Rachad and McDonald) to the small screen and aided by the detailed direction of Kenny Leon, has opened up the story for the television screen without losing the story's intensity or intimacy. Phylicia Rachad is nothing short of brilliant, in the performance of her career, as Lena, the proud matriarch struggling to hold her family together and hoping that this money might help. Audra McDonald, who has won 4 Tony Awards for her work in Broadway musicals and won a fifth for this role on Broadway, proves that she is as powerful an actress as she is songstress as she brings a depth and substance to the pivotal role of Ruth that I have never seen before. Sanaa Lathan also offers one of her best performances as the bombastic Beneatha, a walking talking hurricane of emotions struggling to find who she is in a world where she feels like she is suffocating. Sadly, Sean Combs had some big shoes to step into, taking on a role originated by Sidney Poiter and for me, his performance just doesn't work...there is an emptiness to the performance that implies Combs really doesn't understand a man like Walter Lee. Combs also seems to be unaware at times that he is now in front of a television camera and not in a Broadway theater and that certain facets of his performance have to be taken in and controlled, which can be partly blamed on the director I suppose, but this problem only exists with Combs, not his leading ladies. Poitier brought a dignity and maturity to the role of Walter Lee that Combs is missing...he plays the role as a petulant child, diluting a lot of its power. Despite Combs problematic performance, this film stands as a worthy tribute to its predecessors thanks to the mostly effective direction by Kenny Leon and three extraordinary performances from Sanaa Lathan, Audra McDonald, and especially Phylicia Rachad.
-
rpniew25 February 2008There is nothing wrong with remaking and recasting the Lorraine Hansberry masterwork; we shouldn't pay undue fealty to the original cast. I'm sure Olivier's, Jacobi's, and Branaugh's Hamlet would suffer in comparison to the original Burbage performance. Plays are meant to be inhabited by different people as the generations pass. Therefore, there is nothing wrong, in theory, to the making of this version.
This rendition is superior to the 1989 "American Playhouse" performance, which was poorly paced and largely overacted. The female parts are perfectly cast and performed. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, for the male parts.
P. Diddy, or Sean Combs, or whatever name he is going by these days, simply does not have the acting chops to bring out the complexities of the Walter Younger character. Where Sidney Poitier and, to a lesser extent, Danny Glover, were able to grasp hold of the anger and frustration of the man, Mr. Diddy twitches and frowns. He performs as if a lowered head and furrowed eyebrows are the makings of a great performance. I was reminded of Hayden Christianson taking the complex evil of Darth Vader and turning him into a naughty teenager. Combs plays Walter like a street punk.
Sean Patrick Thomas, as George Murchison, fares a little better. He does what he can with what is essentially a superficial and somewhat stereotyped character.
The greatest error is the miscasting of John Stamos as Lindner. He gives the character a harder, more outwardly racist edge than John Fiedler, who created the role. Stamos drips hatred and prejudice just a little too much -- it is easy to ultimately say no to him just to tick him off. Fiedler, working with Hansberry, had a much better grip on the role -- not a man who is outwardly racist, but as one who is sadly misinformed, ignorant (meaning, simply, not understanding), and afraid. Stamos tries to chew up just a little too much scenery.
David Oyelowo, as Joseph Asagai, is the most well cast male in the film, hitting every note required by the character.
The female cast fares far better. Phylicia Rashad recreates and improves upon the role of Lena Younger, breaking the "Mammy"-isms of the earlier performers. Audra McDonald certainly will not usurp Ruby Dee as the definitive Ruth Younger, but does an excellent job in a part that requires an extreme range of emotion.
The greatest revelation in the film by far is Sanaa Lathan as Beneatha. Beneatha is a key character in the play and is relatively ignored in the original, and not particularly well played in the 1989 version. Playing a character substantially younger than she is in real live, Lathan is able to exhibit the hope, anger, childish "know-it-all" attitude and sadness of a young woman in her position. Unfortunately, the screenwriters chose to omit her lovely, sad second-act monologue about her desire to become a doctor; this section was excised in the original film and restored in the American Playhouse version and should have been present here.
Overall, this is a worthwhile film, but imperfect in many ways. -
jennifer_ayalacastro18 October 2017I think this movie was good. I liked it because it gave a lot of emotion threw out the whole movie, there was happiness,sadness,surprised. There were some differences from the play and the movie. In the play beneatha changes her hair and george tells her that she can't go out like that, but in the movie george just comes in the apartment and tells her, "were supposed to go to the play, not be in it" also at the end of the play when they all are moving to the new house, mama almost forgets her plant, and in the play mama goes back to the apartment and takes it, but in the movie walter goes and gets the plant and gives it to mama. Overall the acting was really good there was a lot of emotion moments but it was a good movie.
-
JoBloTheMovieCritic20 July 20196/10 - a movie based on an award-winning play that just didn't quite capture the true feeling of its source material
-
edwagreen26 February 2008Outstanding version of the Lorraine Hansberry classic.
Sean Combs is just terrific as Walter, a young frustrated black, who has an opportunity to make it in a prejudiced world but is victimized by his own people. Bitter, he is ready to take the white man for a ride when the latter is willing to pay him off so that he and his family don't move into an all white neighborhood.
Combs interpretation of the role is marvelously depicted and interesting to note. Unlike Sidney Poitier, he brings a common touch to the part. He is an embittered militant who is willing to strike out at anything to attain the American dream.
Congratulations to Phylicia Rashad and Audra MacDonald for their brilliant performances.
This production works because it brings out that prejudice and taking advantage can occur within your own group.
In addition, we see the hard work ethic shown to be a realistic solution to societal problems.
John Stamos brings the right image as the representative of the community trying to get the family not to move in. His supposed outreach is immediately tempered by utter bigotry and he moves well with this excellent ensemble cast. -
paxh20 March 2021A Raisin in the Sun covers several different topics involving race, and the topic of dreams as a whole. The plot is great with several great characters, and an overall interesting message. Kind of crazy to see John Stamos in this movie, especially seeing the role that he is playing. The film contains several gut wrenching moments in its plot that would generate sympathy from just about anyone, especially towards the end when the Walter loses some of the money due to shady investments. Though they are still able to move into the house considering the down payment was already payed and decide that this would be the best way to make a better life for all of them.
-
It is said that an author must have a measured amount of distance (in terms of time) from her subject matter before she can write about it. This is to give her time to digest and let the the incident settle in her mind and emotion so that she may do justice to her work. Lorraine Hansberry's work was written in the 1950's at the height of urban white discrimination and censorship against blacks. This adaption is done some 50 years later at a time when the arts are freer to touch on sensitive issues and from a vantage point from which we can evaluate the white American mindset and value system and how it has played itself out over the course of the past 50 years.
Lena Younger is the wise matriarch of a black household residing in an apartment in the urban black section of Chicago in the 1950's. The family is blessed to be humbled and to have a loving and trusting relationships within the household. The well-being of the household is shattered by the expectation and subsequent arrival of a small fortune, a $10,000 life insurance payment to Lena. The expectation of the money is seen as seed money by Lena's son, Walter Lee. Walter Lee has a dead-end job, a chauffeur working for a snobbish white boss. The expectation of the money spawns Walter Lee's imagination as seed money to achieve economic freedom through a business of his own. Berneatha, Lena's daughter, is an artsy, spontaneous type person who looks forward towards using the money to finance her education to become a doctor, a technical discipline. Ruth, Walter Lee's wife, is expecting and sees any additional money as just another way to get by. Lena would like to use the money to provide for the practical future needs of the household and doesn't personally need any funds for herself. The story points out how each of the mentioned character's self-interest agenda, as shaped by the American value system of the time and still applies today, is pursued at the expense of destabilizing the family as result of the $10,000. The money becomes the distraction that takes attention and gratitude away from the most important of family fortunes: the gift of humbleness and the appreciation of the simplicity that harmonized, and lent contentment to the household for all those years before the subject of money ever came up.
The social commentary is that America, to a black person and other minorities, is a land of barriers. The system presents barriers to blacks and other minorities who genuinely just want to fulfill their life's purpose, contribute their talents to society and only ask to make a decent living at that. Money or capital is a way to break through these barriers to enter a profession (doctor), business (liquor store) or to retire. The ironic twist is that the very barriers established by the white people to oppress minorities provides for the very education that nurtures character, humbleness and eventually wisdom. You can see that in the genuine, and heartfelt performance by the actors in this movie who dramatize the sensitive social issues covered by Hansberry's work some 50 years later. With a distance in time of 50 years, it can be said that this sincere, from the heart interpretation of Hansberry's work truly does justice to her intended message. -
The movie "A Raisin in the Sun" which was produced by Kenny Leon in 2008 and based on the novel by Lorraine Hansberry is an impressive film that consists of several interesting elements. The author introduces them to convey the message that African Americans often see themselves confronted with racism and discrimination. To begin with the differences between the book and the film, one can say that the settings used in the film are more diverse as provided in the book so that the story happens in different places. Moreover, the scenes in the film are often presented in a more dramatic way than in the book which might disturb some people. Nevertheless, I were positively surprised by the film because the director decided (several times) to add new scenes (for example the scene when Mama searches for an adequate house) or to change them (for example when Ruth considers an abortion). For that reason, even people who have already read the novel should consider to watch the movie as well because there are some really impressive scenes. I highly recommend to watch them. Talking now about the music, I would like to say that the producers chose quite matching songs because the rather dramatic music really fits to the story and to the personal problems of the characters. It could be mentioned that dramatic and sad scenes are underlined by rather quiet music and violinos whilst the happy parts of the story are supported by the use of trumpets and Jazz music. In addition, personal scenes are emphasized by the use of only one instrument. For that reason, the choice of music and the instruments that are used in the single scenes help to underline the importance of the whole story. As I would like to come to an conclusion now, I recommend this film to everyone who already read the novel. Seeing the differences between the drama and the film could really help you to understand the problems Lorraine Hansberry tried to express by writing "A Raisin in the Sun". Moreover, I think that the music in the movie underlines the feelings of the protagonists in a very striking way. All in all, I would finish then by saying that even though the film might be a bit difficult to watch, it is full of potential and as the topic of racism and discrimination is still relevant today, I really recommend it!! #maytheforce2018
-
jaded1258 January 2013After reading the Lorraine Hansberry play, one would expect this film to be a grand portrayal of a struggling black family in the 1950's. What one gets is a poor adaptation of an amazing play. If Lorraine Hansberry were still alive, she'd kill over taking Sydney Poitier with her. The choice to have P. Diddy in the film in any capacity was a fluke, giving him the lead role was an even greater fluke clearly credited to an aneurysm. He completely overacted the role and made it hard to believe that this was based on Hensberry's play. Let's just face Sean Combs, you're almost as bad at acting as you at dancing. And considering you've been doing the same move since the 90's please stay off my screen. In addition to poorly casting what should've been the moving role of Walter Younger, Kenny Leon then apparently threw the play completely out the window and cast a far too old Sanaa Lathan to play Beneatha. Granted I believe Sanaa Lathan is a fine actress, she was too old to even be considered for the lively optimistic Beneatha. I spent half the movie asking why this grown woman was behaving like a child. The only commendable casting was Phylicia Rashad as Lena and Audra McDonald as Ruth. They were a beauty to watch and the only reason I didn't give this film a 0 rating. Overall I'd only recommend watching this film if you want to see how NOT to perceive this play or if your cable goes out and this movie just so happens to be on your Netflix queue.
-
Rugrat1fn26 February 2008I can honestly say I enjoyed this movie, I enjoyed the 1984(?) version with Danny Glover and was hoping to catch a treat with this film. A treat a received greatly.
Yes this film had many flaws, as does every movie. So I shall give the flaws then the bright side of the film Flaws: I was bored the first half of the film, it moved in a little slow, and Sean Combs performance didn't help. I felt that the cast excluding Sean Combs was superb and was full of real emotion and strength. Combs was trying to hard to act, when he should have let it flow and have a real feeling for the character and not just try to over act. He does have his moments though, but those moment are quickly cut back to his not letting it flow and not having a true feeling for the character.
Bright Side: The film was a delight. Raw emotion and strength from the leading ladies and the leading men(excluding Sean Combs). Phylicia Rashad was full of emotion and pride, that you instantly love her and feel for her and the pain she goes through. Audra McDonald is superb and excellent actress who is going somewhere, you also feel for her and go through struggles and emotion. Beneatha Younger (Sanaa Lathan) is spunky, yet naive. You love her and many of my young generation can relate to her.
Overall: The acting is brilliant coming from the cast, again excluding Sean Combs yet he does have moments. Direction is great, and the feel and emotion and strength is just excellent 8/10 -Izzy -
Genkinchan10 January 2022I just seen the 1961 version before watching this TV movie... frankly speaking this version put me to sleep Puff daddy ain't Sidney Poitier all the cast just don't click as well as the original.
-
vchimpanzee4 March 2008In 1959 Chicago, the Younger family lives in a small apartment with cockroaches and other problems, although they have done their best to make it look nice.
Walter works as a chauffeur for a white family that doesn't seem to acknowledge him as a human being. He is tired of "Yassir" and "Nossir" and wants to start his own business with friends Bobo and Willy.
Walter's mother Lena works as a maid and is loved by the little girl she cares for, but she can quit that job now since she is getting a $10,000 life insurance check after the death of her husband.
Walter's wife Ruth does people's laundry and raises their son Travis. Walter's sister Beneatha also lives with them, sharing a room with her mother. Travis sleeps on the couch in the living room.
What is the best way to spend the insurance money? Beneatha could use it to go to medical school. She is in college now, and she has two potential romantic partners--George, who comes from a rich family and is about as black as Carlton Banks, and language professor Joseph Asagai, who wants to teach Beneatha about Africa.
But Walter wants to open a liquor store. Imagine how that will go over with his devout Christian mother.
Lena sees a great opportunity to move into a better neighborhood. But the people next door to the house she finds are all white and don't want blacks moving in.
For the most part, this movie came across as the quality production ABC told us it was. The characters are strong and have values, but the question is how much will circumstances cause them to question those values.
Phylicia Rashad will surely be mentioned at Emmy time. She was outstanding, showing so much emotion when the time came to do it. It's the first time I ever saw her play a truly black character. I had to look closely to make sure it was actually her. Up until now, she has played attractive, young-looking women who could have been any ethnic group but happened to be dark-skinned.
Audra McDonald also did a very good job, and she was quite good-looking even here, with such a nice smile.
David Oyelowo showed so much passion for his heritage and for teaching the woman he cared about to have the same passion.
Not to take anything away from her performance, but Sanaa Lathan just got on my nerves. Perhaps that means she was doing everything right.
Sean Patrick Thomas did a good job showing another side of black culture; in the 1950s most blacks did not have money, and despite having dark skin, he seemed out of touch with the problems of his race, quite content with life.
Sean Combs didn't quite give the impression of quality that ABC had led me to expect. He was good, but almost always so bitter. I can't blame the writing, because Sidney Poitier played the role, and we all know he would have done a magnificent job with it. But Combs was good enough.
Bill Nunn had one fine scene as Bobo. He was in several other scenes, but he lived up to the promise of this film.
I liked John Stamos a lot on "Full House" (in fact, he was the reason I started watching the show in the first place). I liked him here. But surely not everyone will. He seemed out of place in this type of production. It was like watching Uncle Jesse facing Aunt Becky and trying to weasel out of having behaved in a racist way, mainly by explaining it was everyone else who wanted him to do it. But he was not threatening at all.
This is certainly worth seeing. -
This entry of the 2008 TV movie version of Lorraine Hansberry's play "A Raisin in the Sun" that just aired on ABC four days ago, is my final entry on African-Americans in film and television in chronological order for Black History Month. Nearly the entire cast of the recent Broadway revival of this still-resonant drama-Phylicia Rashad, Sean Combs, Audra McDonald, Sanaa Lathan, and Bill Nunn-reprise their roles here. They're all great as well as Sean Patric Thomas, David Oyelowo, Paul Stephen, and, as Carl Linder-the man who tries to buy the Youngers out of their new house, John Stamos. Rashad and McDonald, both of whom won Tonys for their performances, should repeat at the Emmys this fall. Combs, usually known as Puff Daddy/P. Diddy/Diddy, holds his own with the experienced veterans here. Scenes such as Rashad slapping daughter Lathan after the latter denounces God or Combs doing his "shufflin' Negro" act near the end to everyone's disgust still packs a wallop. And writer Paris Qualles, whose work I just watched on The Rosa Parks Story, and director Kenny Leon open up the play's locations and expand on the dialogue considerably well. What else can I say except it's been a wonderful journey watching how much African-American performers and filmmakers have evolved over the nearly 90 years with nearly 100 listings here at IMDb during this special month. With the writer's strike still in effect at the beginning of it, I thought this was as good a time as any to celebrate some of the most acclaimed and popular celebrities America and the world has ever known. With that, I'll just say thanks for anyone who's read this and my other BHM comments and gave me favorable and even not-so-favorable marks as a result. Oh, and feel free to read and mark my other non-BHM comments as well!
-
heather_sullivan18 October 2017I thoroughly enjoyed this film version of "A Raisin in the Sun." The play is an important work of American literature and this adaptation brings it to life with emotional, engaging performances. The strongest portrayals come from Phylicia Rashad (Mama) and Audra McDonald (Ruth). This film includes some scenes that have been added from the original play, but these do not detract from the story; rather, they add context that readers of the play may miss. For instance, the play is set entirely in the Younger family's apartment. However, the film includes scenes set in a number of different locations around 1950's Chicago; this allows the film to show some of the racism that the Younger family faces as African Americans living in pre-Civil Rights America. The theme of racism is present in Hansberry's original play, but it may not be obvious to all readers. This film version does an effective job of illustrating this important theme so that viewers can understand the Youngers' story as one of struggle to overcome systemic discrimination.
-
ScottAmundsen22 December 2013I am not a huge fan of remakes, particularly when the original is as iconic as the 1961 A RAISIN IN THE SUN. But this is a worthy effort, particularly considering it was made for television.
I think casting Sean Combs as Walter Lee was a mistake; he lacks the intensity that Sidney Poitier exhibited in the original, and in fact at times seems uncertain as to how to play the role. But the producers have buttressed his performance with some heavy duty talent: Phylicia Rashad as Lena, Audra McDonald as Ruth, and Sanaa Lathan as Beneatha.
Yet despite all this there is a curious lack of energy to this production. Rashad tries hard, but she does not have the gravitas that Claudia McNeil brought to the role. McDonald tries even harder, but all I can say is she's no Ruby Dee and perhaps the comparison is even a tad bit unfair. As for Lathan, she's the only one with a certain amount of energy, but I found her deliberate imitation of Diana Sands, right down to the way she read some of her lines, irritating and unworthy of an actress whom I suspect is more talented than that and simply chose to cut corners.
The sole improvement on the 1961 film is the role of Asagai. Not so much David Oyelowo's performance, though he's fine here, but in the original film the role was severely cut down from the stage version and this production replaces an important speech delivered by the character to Beneatha after the money has been lost. Pity that Ivan Dixon did not get the chance to deliver this speech in the 1961 film.
The five stars are mostly for the smooth camera work and a fair effort on the part of the actresses. As remakes go it isn't bad, but when it was over I still was left with the feeling "Why did they bother?" -
maria_rojas-caleno18 October 2017I think this movie was pretty good. The film had some pretty good adaptation of the play and gave decent details on it. However, there was some changes. for example, in the play the Youngers never leaves the apartment and on the film they do. On the other hand, this is good because it gave a better understanding of what was like living in the late 1950s. Also, the film gave a better understanding of the racism that the Youngers suffered by changing the plot. I think that the movie was engaging and emotional, i would definitely watch it again.
-
shandee_salinas18 October 2017So I think this movie was bad because of the way Walter,Beneatha, and George Murchison acted.When George and Beneatha were at the club dancing,George made it look like he wasn't trying.Walter really didn't show the way he acted like in the book.Beneatha didn't act so strong as a woman, she acted like a normal person in the real life,it's not like the book.The book made it more explosive and very interesting.
-
I think this was great. This movie was great because I enjoyed all the acting in the movie. I like how they changed and added things to the movie from the book. In the movie they help us understand how racism took place.Like when in the supermarket when Mama asked for fresh apples but she was given old apples but when the white lady asked for fresh apples he gave her brand new apples. In the back that had never happened. Also when Walter dropped the white man off and got out the car to talk to Bobo and the cop came and gave Bobo a ticket, and to get off of here.But when we seen Walter he told him to get back in the car and I think he told him that and not Bobo because Walter is driving a white man around in a white man car.
-
Dr_Coulardeau16 October 2023I assume we all know the plot and story of this play. This remake of the previous film with Sidney Pottier (1961) does not change much. It adds a few short scenes to move from one situation to another, to make more explicit some elements like for example the envisaged abortion. But the use of a clandestine abortionist is not in phase with the period when the film was released. In 2008 there were clinics specializing in such a medical intervention everywhere in the USA. Of course, the addendum in this film makes it easier to show Ruth's change of mind. But Asagai was right in 1961 when he said, "There is something wrong when all the dreams of a household depend on a man dying." And he is even righter in 2008. The few added scenes all go that way: to make the "money stake" most important, and also most fragile. Money is so easily stolen. But note ten thousand dollars is not much in 2008 when the poverty guideline is for a household of five people $35,140 in 2023, and it was $24,800 in 2008.
The stake with this film in 2008, and it was not obvious in 1961, is the reactions of a white audience and that of a black audience. The integration of movie theaters was just starting in 1961 and will only be brought to completion after 1964.
"Around 1961-62, seeing the writing on the wall, Southern theaters started to quietly integrate, especially if they were owned by national chains worried about the bad press and picket lines calling out their complicity in Jim Crow. In cooperation with local civil rights groups, many theater operators adopted a strategy for peaceful integration that had first proven successful in Nashville. Without advanced publicity, exhibitors unobtrusively admitted Blacks during low attendance matinees, then into nighttime shows on weekdays, and finally on weekends. The managers then announced that the theater had been integrated - a fait accompli completed before local Klansmen could protest. Less accommodating venues ran up against the Department of Justice of the Kennedy Administration, but not until after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were American theaters totally integrated - though, of course, local custom and municipal geography still often dictated a de facto segregation in audience composition." (...)
But the question of the integration of drama, comedy, and music theaters is a more complicated question.
First, the desegregation of drama theaters (comedies, tragedies, musicals, etc.) is not richly exemplified in available data. I found the following elements for musicals:
"In the early days of musical theatre, audiences were segregated. Black people were not allowed to sit in the main auditorium but were relegated to the balcony or gallery. This was a reflection of the segregation that was prevalent in society at large. Black people were not considered to be equal to white people, and so they were not given the same access to the best seats in the house. However, as society has become more egalitarian, so too has the seating in musical theatres. Nowadays, audiences are usually not segregated, and black people are able to sit wherever they want." (...)
But most data concern the integration of theatrical productions, hence actors, actresses, authors, composers, etc., plus all other performers as soon as some music was concerned with conductors and orchestras or bands.
"Broadway began to desegregate in the 1950s, though it was a slow process. It was not until the 1960s that black performers began to be cast in mainstream productions. In the 1970s and 1980s, black performers began to win major awards for their work on Broadway. Today, black performers are a regular fixture on Broadway, and their contributions are celebrated." (...)
Along this line here is some information about integration within the production and performance of theatrical works on stages, hence in theaters.
"Throughout the country in the early 1960s, the issues of civil rights - voter's rights and voter registration for blacks, integration, and fairness and equality in the workplace - were in the news and on television nearly every day, but mostly absent on Broadway. In 1962, Richard Rodgers produced the first musical he had attempted since the death of Oscar Hammerstein II, in 1960, an original piece called "No Strings," for which he would write both the lyrics and the music. Set in contemporary Paris, "No Strings" was about a love affair between an expatriate writer and a fashion model. The model, an American, was played by Diahann Carroll, an exquisite and talented black actress and singer, who had made her Broadway debut in 1954. Although the interracial aspect of the romance was apparent to anyone who was watching, it was never mentioned specifically. Rodgers had Carroll's character refer to her growing up "north of Central Park." Well, so had Richard Rodgers, but clearly, he meant something else. A show that looked to be socially progressive appeared, upon reflection, to be finicky at best, cowardly at worst." (...)
In 2008, the audience was vastly integrated in New York, and since this production is for the cinema, in all cinemas in the USA. But how can the white audience react to the facts presented here, and yet the presence of the abortionist (hardly alluded to in the original play and film) dates the action? A white audience is confronted with a totally hypocritical society that denies a black family the right to buy a house and move into a white neighborhood. That kind of segregation is illegal, but yet still practiced, even if discreetly. The white audience is the target for the responsibility for this segregation because the blacks are the targets of the whites on the stage. We all know ghettos exist in America, and in many other Western countries, to only speak of our own threshold. Hence the last sentence of the white representative of the white community in which this Black family is going to move is no longer a warning. It becomes a menace. "I hope you people know exactly what you are doing."
But what can the reaction of a black audience be? They are bound to compare this slightly aged situation on the stage with the present reality. They have to know, or they cannot ignore, the following opinion:
"Housing discrimination is still a significant problem in Chicago. A 2017 Fair Housing 59-page study (...) looked into six community areas that had the most reported complaints of racial and income discrimination against renters: Jefferson Park, the Near North Side, Bridgeport, Hyde Park, Clearing, and Mount Greenwood.
"Sixty-three percent of the time, Black testers posing as potential renters holding CHA Housing Choice Vouchers experienced some form of discrimination. "The highest ratio of discriminatory acts to race-related tests occurred in the Near North Side neighborhood, where over half of the tests involved race discrimination," the Chicago Commission on Human Relations and the Chicago Lawyers' Committee found." (...)
Even if things have improved in more than 60 years (two generations) since 1961, we are far from a fair situation. Discrimination is everywhere in substantial proportions, and we should not reduce the concept to racial discrimination. But we think the whites are not burning a house with the black residents inside and with doors and windows nailed down anymore, but the rejection of whatever people out of some residential neighborhoods, and the existence of neighborhoods where the proportion of "colored" people is over 50% or even twice as much as the overall proportion of "colored" people in the city concerned, and at times a lot higher is a plain fact. The play then becomes, for a black audience, a call to action. Black Housing Matters, just as Black Lives Matter. At the same time, I am not sure, nor convinced, that the entrepreneurial approach to the improvement of one's life was or is the only solution, or even maybe the main solution. I am rather of the mind that entrepreneurialism is one element along with pride (the final scene of the film insists on this element), but not only pride of the people, pride as members of the people, yet self-pride is just as important. Nevertheless, and moreover, education is crucial, along with desegregation at all levels of society. Segregation is a lethal weapon for some, a curse for others, or evil for a third group but it always leads to fatal events like with COVID-19.
"According to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Epic Health Research Network, based on data from the Epic health record system for 7 million Black patients, 5.1 million Hispanic patients, 1.4 million Asian patients, and 34.1 million White patients, as of July 20, 2020, the hospitalization rates and death rates per 10 000, respectively, were 24.6 and 5.6 for Black patients, 30.4 and 5.6 for Hispanic patients, 15.9 and 4.3 for Asian patients, and 7.4 and 2.3 for White patients. American Indian persons living in the US also have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19." (...)
The film then, like the play insists on an essential collective awareness of the danger of unfairness, and inequality. We are all capable of doing better than our fathers and mothers, but we are not all able to do the same things. You cannot ask a flea to fly, nor a fly to swim. The actors are definitely good even if the acting is at times slightly too demonstrative instead of empathetic. But we can wonder if this play has not become an agit-prop drama or even a Brechtian epic play. In both cases, it should lead the audience, black and white alike, to conscious knowledge of what has to be changed and action to get it changed.
Dr. Jacques Coulardeau. -
brittany_guaman18 October 2017I think the movie was pretty good. The actors were great. They knew what was happening. The book and the movie are very similar. Some scenes are added or some don't show up. For example in the movie it gives more details than the book. It shows more and in the book it mostly takes place in the Younger's apartment. In the movie the setting is not just in the apartment. The ending in the book is different from the ending in the movie but besides that I liked the movie/book.
-
carl-785587 December 2022Never let go of your dreams. That is what many say. But is this really true? The 2008 filmic version of Lorraine Hansberrys drama a A Raisin in the sun is about the value and purposes of dreams shown by a black family living in the slums of Chicagos Southside.
The drama tells the story of a black family living in a small apartement under hard conditions until they receive a life insurance of 10.000 dollars. Every member of the family has an idea what to do with the money to fulfill their dreams. The differences of their ideas lead to conflicts. The head of the family, Lena, decides to spend the money on a house in a white neighbourhood. She gives the left over money to her son Walter, who wants to open a liquor store.
After a while, Walter finds out his friend left with his money, leaving him devastated. As a result, Walter wants to accept an offer from the white neighbourhood, who want to buy the house they bought back. What Walter does next, will surprise you. See it yourself.
The acting performance of the cast was very appreciable. Especially the choice of including Sean Combs was a nice idea. The cast of Ruth, Beneatha and especially Mama perfectly fitted to the characters. You could see the weariness of Ruth which fitted perfectly.
However, you could not figure any erratic speech in Walter, unlike in the drama version. In the movie, Walter made a more elegant and rather calm impression which did not fit to the movie.
I really liked the actor of Bobo, who hit the spot on performing Bobos role. He almost perfectly fitted to the image of Bobo I imagined by reading.
Regarding the plot of the movie, the general plot was followed, but there were obvious and partly unnecessary differences to the drama version like the scene where Ruth visits the hair salon for the abortion. However, some scenes like the scene of the rich white house needed to be implemented into the movie, as they were part of Walters imagination. They added a nice touch to the plot.
Regarding the choice of music in the drama, I would like to say that I personally found the music too monotonous which did not fit to the dramatic build up of tension. The monotonous music also made some scenes a little boring, which could have a little more tension by using energetic music.
Talking about the cinematography in the movie, I appreciate the use of no CGI and other effects. Also the set of the movie and the places the movie was filmed fitted to the segregation which was discussed in the movie. However, the apartment the Youngers lived in did not look run down. It looked like a very comfortable space to live in. This could have been improved.
Taking all aspects into consideration, I highly recommend the movie for people who are interested in the purpose of dreams. If I had to choose between the drama or the movie, I would choose and recommend read the drama first due to its skillfull and fitting choice of words. -
guadalupe_cantor-gasca18 October 2017I liked this movie because it was a little better than the book. The reason why i liked this movie was because i am a visual learner. The movie showed more stuff than the book like for example how they specified when ruth went to the lady for the abortion. The book said something totally different like they were going to do the abortion at mama's kitchen. Some other differences were how walter didn't take ruth to the movies. In the book walter took ruth to the movies but in the movie walter didn't do that. Overall i like the movie and the book was okay too.
-
jas-cenn-chargers2 April 2024Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun is a drama set in the 1950s, sometime between the end of World War II and 1959 in the South Side of Chicago. The play follows an African-American family for a few weeks as they attempt to improve their financial situation after the death of their father, while also dealing with racism, housing discrimination, and assimilation. The family ultimately buys a home in a white neighborhood, which Hansberry fictionalizes as "Clybourne Park".
I like A Raisin in the Sun because it teaches the importance of family and that people can achieve their dreams despite oppression and lack of money. The play also shows how racial prejudice affected the prospects of urban African Americans in the 1950s, and how women were viewed at the time. My favorite character is Walter Lee Younger because he is willing to sacrifice his happiness for his family and take risks to improve their financial situation. For example, Walter takes a job as a chauffeur for a white family, even though he knows it is risky. He is also heroic because he is willing to stand up for what he believes in, even when it is unpopular. I highly recommend A Raisin in the Sun to high school readers and others who enjoy serious, thought-provoking plays and this film deserves 5 stars for pure entertainment.