The Terminal (2004) (1 Viewer)

[Adam_S]

okay so racist is probably too strong a word. I certainly don't think that Spielberg is a racist, but I do think there is racism still in the underpinnings of our society that we too often don't acknowledge, it's part of the comfortable status quo to not question very closely the way that minorities are portrayed, especially when it plays to audience expectations. After all, 'that's just the way things are,' or 'they're all like that' could easily be construed as prejudiced statements.

I think I was more frustrated with the film than anything else. Because the writers give genuine attempts at characterization to Gustpa character, I loved the scene when he discusses his past with Nevarsky. But even that could be turned on its head, after all he is a criminal and that plays to another stereotype. All the examples I gave are somewhat stretches. By no means is the representation clear or overt, I think it's more a reflection on our society than anything else. I've also been making a conscious effort to see things from a different perspective than I usually do these days. I had a class last semester on representations of race, class, and gender so maybe I overreacted a bit to the film, but certainly that character affected my enjoyment of the film. Perhaps my sensitivities were somewhat heightened by watching 12 Angry Men last night, who knows.

And I probably would have dismissed the portrayals had the film had that indescribable glow of greatness when a film really CLICKS for me--for whatever reason I didn't experience that. I think the word of mouth will be good on the film though. It's an excellent film for families with older children, very charming and enjoyable.


Or they're generally concerned/frustrated at acceptance of status quo. I too think it can sometimes get out of hand, like I said I think it's a minor issue in the film, but one that frustrated me, so I vented in my review. Certainly I'm still exploring the ways these new ideas can be applied before rejecting and accepting more of them. I've already considered and tossed out some things from the class, but I'm still working out where I stand on some of the core concepts. You just happened to catch me in a moment of transistion where I'm still working out how exactly I evaluate films from a race/class/gender perspective.

 

[Adam_S]

okay so racist is probably too strong a word. I certainly don't think that Spielberg is a racist, but I do think there is racism still in the underpinnings of our society that we too often don't acknowledge, it's part of the comfortable status quo to not question very closely the way that minorities are portrayed, especially when it plays to audience expectations. After all, 'that's just the way things are,' or 'they're all like that' could easily be construed as prejudiced statements.

I think I was more frustrated with the film than anything else. Because the writers give genuine attempts at characterization to Gustpa character, I loved the scene when he discusses his past with Nevarsky. But even that could be turned on its head, after all he is a criminal and that plays to another stereotype. All the examples I gave are somewhat stretches. By no means is the representation clear or overt, I think it's more a reflection on our society than anything else. I've also been making a conscious effort to see things from a different perspective than I usually do these days. I had a class last semester on representations of race, class, and gender so maybe I overreacted a bit to the film, but certainly that character affected my enjoyment of the film. Perhaps my sensitivities were somewhat heightened by watching 12 Angry Men last night, who knows.

And I probably would have dismissed the portrayals had the film had that indescribable glow of greatness when a film really CLICKS for me--for whatever reason I didn't experience that. I think the word of mouth will be good on the film though. It's an excellent film for families with older children, very charming and enjoyable.


Or they're generally concerned/frustrated at acceptance of status quo. I too think it can sometimes get out of hand, like I said I think it's a minor issue in the film, but one that frustrated me, so I vented in my review. Certainly I'm still exploring the ways these new ideas can be applied before rejecting and accepting more of them. I've already considered and tossed out some things from the class, but I'm still working out where I stand on some of the core concepts. You just happened to catch me in a moment of transistion where I'm still working out how exactly I evaluate films from a race/class/gender perspective.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

Adam, I don't think you need to be apologetic. I had laughed during the dinner scene while being mildly uncomfortable. Spielberg and co. do not need to be racist to shape characters that may evoke negative stereotypes, which I'm not sure the movie does.

Spielberg seems interested in the idea of America being a melting pot, but the Terminal, like most Hollywood movies, is Caucasian central; Hanks in the center, three non-whites as his friends, a white female interest (Dolores and Victor have chemistry, but the possibility of romance is cast aside very early on), and a white antagonist (as the film develops more, Tucci becomes more of a villain in my view, which is unfortunate). The man that inspired this story, was Iranian, and for various reasons, the filmmakers decided that that man's story was not the one they wanted to tell. One could argue that the three friends are merely tokens for the appearance of ethnic integration, or we could just look at it as the filmmakers decision to include characters of different ethnic background. Which is more fitting to this case, I'm not sure yet. But I think Adam's view certainly has merit.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

Adam, I don't think you need to be apologetic. I had laughed during the dinner scene while being mildly uncomfortable. Spielberg and co. do not need to be racist to shape characters that may evoke negative stereotypes, which I'm not sure the movie does.

Spielberg seems interested in the idea of America being a melting pot, but the Terminal, like most Hollywood movies, is Caucasian central; Hanks in the center, three non-whites as his friends, a white female interest (Dolores and Victor have chemistry, but the possibility of romance is cast aside very early on), and a white antagonist (as the film develops more, Tucci becomes more of a villain in my view, which is unfortunate). The man that inspired this story, was Iranian, and for various reasons, the filmmakers decided that that man's story was not the one they wanted to tell. One could argue that the three friends are merely tokens for the appearance of ethnic integration, or we could just look at it as the filmmakers decision to include characters of different ethnic background. Which is more fitting to this case, I'm not sure yet. But I think Adam's view certainly has merit.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Well I never got any racist vibes until I read some comments on here. And I think they are misplaced. But what do I know, since I thought Jar Jar Binks was funny.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Well I never got any racist vibes until I read some comments on here. And I think they are misplaced. But what do I know, since I thought Jar Jar Binks was funny.

 

[Kevin Grey]

See, I get a completely different feeling from the movie. The casting of a caucasion protagonist has a whole lot more to with the lack of non-white bankable leads in Hollywood than anything intrinsic to the writing or direction of the film. The racism there has more to do with Hollywood as a whole and its audience than anything specific to The Terminal. Plus, Spielberg and Hanks are good friends- this was likely intended as a vehicle for Hanks as soon as Spielberg became involved so the casting of non-caucasian stars like Denzel Washington or Antonio Banderas was likely never even considered.

For the rest of the casting it looked to me like the filmmakers went out of their way to diversify the cast.

 

[Kevin Grey]

See, I get a completely different feeling from the movie. The casting of a caucasion protagonist has a whole lot more to with the lack of non-white bankable leads in Hollywood than anything intrinsic to the writing or direction of the film. The racism there has more to do with Hollywood as a whole and its audience than anything specific to The Terminal. Plus, Spielberg and Hanks are good friends- this was likely intended as a vehicle for Hanks as soon as Spielberg became involved so the casting of non-caucasian stars like Denzel Washington or Antonio Banderas was likely never even considered.

For the rest of the casting it looked to me like the filmmakers went out of their way to diversify the cast.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

Kevin, I agree with just about everything you said! And, I don't think it contradicts with my post.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

Kevin, I agree with just about everything you said! And, I don't think it contradicts with my post.

 

[Ernest Rister]

A sweet and gentle movie, but tentative, almost nervous about its own charms. Speilberg was persecuted by school bullies, and I think his high profile failures (Always, Hook, and 1941) and the criticism of his love for Capra and Chaplin-esque sentiment make him too afraid to pull the trigger these days. This is "restrained Spielberg sentiment" and I wish he'd just say "@#$% you" to his critics and "@#$% you" to his insecurities, and just let it all hang out. The Terminal is a sweet film, but a gentle film without any moments of great emotional release that could make it a truly transcendent experience. Can you make a "restrained Capra film"? Spielberg just tried it, and it doesn't really work. It's a good film, even a quirky film (that image of an elderly man jousting with a 747 is going to stay with me for some time) - but I think it is a film too afraid of what it really wants to be.

The Terminal is a trademark example of why filmmakers (especially filmmakers as gifted as Spielberg) should never read or listen to critics.

postscript...especially critics accusing Steven Spielberg of racism, of all things. They say comments about a work of art aren't observations, they are confessions, because what you say about art is merely a window into your own soul. If you see racism in The Terminal, a film about an Eastern-European and his friendship with characters of multiple ethniciites, directed by a man who has adopted children of different ethnicities...well, anyway.

 

[Ernest Rister]

A sweet and gentle movie, but tentative, almost nervous about its own charms. Speilberg was persecuted by school bullies, and I think his high profile failures (Always, Hook, and 1941) and the criticism of his love for Capra and Chaplin-esque sentiment make him too afraid to pull the trigger these days. This is "restrained Spielberg sentiment" and I wish he'd just say "@#$% you" to his critics and "@#$% you" to his insecurities, and just let it all hang out. The Terminal is a sweet film, but a gentle film without any moments of great emotional release that could make it a truly transcendent experience. Can you make a "restrained Capra film"? Spielberg just tried it, and it doesn't really work. It's a good film, even a quirky film (that image of an elderly man jousting with a 747 is going to stay with me for some time) - but I think it is a film too afraid of what it really wants to be.

The Terminal is a trademark example of why filmmakers (especially filmmakers as gifted as Spielberg) should never read or listen to critics.

postscript...especially critics accusing Steven Spielberg of racism, of all things. They say comments about a work of art aren't observations, they are confessions, because what you say about art is merely a window into your own soul. If you see racism in The Terminal, a film about an Eastern-European and his friendship with characters of multiple ethniciites, directed by a man who has adopted children of different ethnicities...well, anyway.

 

[Vickie_M]

If there's any racism in the movie, it's toward the white Americans. What does Victor learn about America? First and foremost, that one white American man (Dixon, the Tucci character) can hold a foreigner's life in his hands. He can play with it, he can bounce it on the floor, he can squeeze it until it bleeds. He can have absolutely no moral foundation as a guide in how to treat said foreigner and fellow human being. He can be filled with bile, and hate, and dishonesty, and bigotry, and get paid good money, running an airport. America!What a country!

Oh, and, white American women are flaky and stupid. Pretty though.

(No, I don't really think the movie was racist one way or the other, I was just taking off on the charge of racism and having fun with it.)


God I disliked this movie. Some things I hated. So many things irritated and annoyed the hell out of me that I couldn't just sit back and enjoy it. It was just plain mean-spirited to me. Others see it as a whimsical little piece of fluff, but my view of it was dark and depressing. If I go into a movie expecting dark and depressing, like say Mystic River, or a dark comedy like Bad Santa, that's ok. I didn't expect this movie to be as mean as it came off to me, and seeing it put me in a terrible mood.

I expected conflict. Conflict is good. But it was painful to see Dixon, the Tucci character, as such an unrelenting asshole, even going so far as to stop Viktor from getting quarters to eat. Trying to get him to go outside so he'd be arrested, when it was obvious that Victor was a decent guy caught in a tragic situation, made me hate, loath and despise that guy.

The only time he came off well was when he tried to get Viktor to say he was afraid of going back to Krakozia, in a bid for political asylum. That scene gave a hint of how the character could have been written/portrayed as a decent, upstanding guy stuck in a frustrating situation between the law, his concern for the airport, and his sympathy toward Victor's predicament. Soon enough though, he's back to being the black hat villain.

There are lots of other reasons why I disliked the movie, but the Tucci character is the primary one.

 

[Vickie_M]

If there's any racism in the movie, it's toward the white Americans. What does Victor learn about America? First and foremost, that one white American man (Dixon, the Tucci character) can hold a foreigner's life in his hands. He can play with it, he can bounce it on the floor, he can squeeze it until it bleeds. He can have absolutely no moral foundation as a guide in how to treat said foreigner and fellow human being. He can be filled with bile, and hate, and dishonesty, and bigotry, and get paid good money, running an airport. America!What a country!

Oh, and, white American women are flaky and stupid. Pretty though.

(No, I don't really think the movie was racist one way or the other, I was just taking off on the charge of racism and having fun with it.)


God I disliked this movie. Some things I hated. So many things irritated and annoyed the hell out of me that I couldn't just sit back and enjoy it. It was just plain mean-spirited to me. Others see it as a whimsical little piece of fluff, but my view of it was dark and depressing. If I go into a movie expecting dark and depressing, like say Mystic River, or a dark comedy like Bad Santa, that's ok. I didn't expect this movie to be as mean as it came off to me, and seeing it put me in a terrible mood.

I expected conflict. Conflict is good. But it was painful to see Dixon, the Tucci character, as such an unrelenting asshole, even going so far as to stop Viktor from getting quarters to eat. Trying to get him to go outside so he'd be arrested, when it was obvious that Victor was a decent guy caught in a tragic situation, made me hate, loath and despise that guy.

The only time he came off well was when he tried to get Viktor to say he was afraid of going back to Krakozia, in a bid for political asylum. That scene gave a hint of how the character could have been written/portrayed as a decent, upstanding guy stuck in a frustrating situation between the law, his concern for the airport, and his sympathy toward Victor's predicament. Soon enough though, he's back to being the black hat villain.

There are lots of other reasons why I disliked the movie, but the Tucci character is the primary one.

 

[Galen_V]

I think that David Edelstein nailed the problem I had with the movie (which I did enjoy) in his review at Slate:

As everyone has basically said, the first hour of the film was an absolute delight. Everyone's been to an airport, everyone's been in one and can relate to the experience of being there - it was very "Seinfeldian" now that I think about it. With the sequences of the arriving crowds at the customs desks to the shot of Hanks literally getting lost in the sea of movement, I was saying to myself "Wow, Spielberg really has this whole airport culture figured out - I can't wait to see what's next." And ultimately, what's next didn't really happen as it seemed as if the "observationalist" well ran dry, and we were left with a bunch of subplots that, while not terrible, were also not what had been set up in the first hour either.

I too had a problem with the ending (I think it would have been perfect to end the movie with that image of the NYC skyline reflecting off of the terminal glass), but it was the final shot in Times Square that bothered me the most. For some reason, the scene in the Ramada Inn sort of had a timeless feel to it, that for some reason removed it from our present time. I can't exactly pin what about it made me feel this way, but to go from that smokey jazz club to the bright lights of Times Square was sort of a jarring reality check for me and one that caught me completely off guard. I must commend the person/people who came up with the end credits though, as I thought they were both clever and very well done.

That said, I thought Hanks was brilliant as usual and the film as a whole was cute and (to use Ernest's word) "sweet", which isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I think I needed something like this after seeing such wonderful films as Van Helsing and Troy. The reviews did scare me a little bit but I'm a glad that I went; I do think that the critics hold Spielberg up to unrealistically high standards sometimes and get disappointed when he doesn't pump out masterpiece after masterpiece.

 

[Galen_V]

I think that David Edelstein nailed the problem I had with the movie (which I did enjoy) in his review at Slate:

As everyone has basically said, the first hour of the film was an absolute delight. Everyone's been to an airport, everyone's been in one and can relate to the experience of being there - it was very "Seinfeldian" now that I think about it. With the sequences of the arriving crowds at the customs desks to the shot of Hanks literally getting lost in the sea of movement, I was saying to myself "Wow, Spielberg really has this whole airport culture figured out - I can't wait to see what's next." And ultimately, what's next didn't really happen as it seemed as if the "observationalist" well ran dry, and we were left with a bunch of subplots that, while not terrible, were also not what had been set up in the first hour either.

I too had a problem with the ending (I think it would have been perfect to end the movie with that image of the NYC skyline reflecting off of the terminal glass), but it was the final shot in Times Square that bothered me the most. For some reason, the scene in the Ramada Inn sort of had a timeless feel to it, that for some reason removed it from our present time. I can't exactly pin what about it made me feel this way, but to go from that smokey jazz club to the bright lights of Times Square was sort of a jarring reality check for me and one that caught me completely off guard. I must commend the person/people who came up with the end credits though, as I thought they were both clever and very well done.

That said, I thought Hanks was brilliant as usual and the film as a whole was cute and (to use Ernest's word) "sweet", which isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I think I needed something like this after seeing such wonderful films as Van Helsing and Troy. The reviews did scare me a little bit but I'm a glad that I went; I do think that the critics hold Spielberg up to unrealistically high standards sometimes and get disappointed when he doesn't pump out masterpiece after masterpiece.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I thought it was sort of interesting that Viktor became a terminal, a conduit, of sorts for relationships during his "internment" inside a terminal.

The Amilia "confessions" reminded me of Fight Club's "Single Serving Friend" idea where you'd open up to strangers faster because you knew you only had the time of the flight to get it all out there. Being a flight attendant, I could see that as being an occupational hazard for her.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I thought it was sort of interesting that Viktor became a terminal, a conduit, of sorts for relationships during his "internment" inside a terminal.

The Amilia "confessions" reminded me of Fight Club's "Single Serving Friend" idea where you'd open up to strangers faster because you knew you only had the time of the flight to get it all out there. Being a flight attendant, I could see that as being an occupational hazard for her.

 

[Micheal]

Exactly! Is it racist that Steven actually used this mans talent as a joke? I don't think so.

This film is anything but racist.

P.S. I found the ending of this film to be perfect!
Very "old Hollywood".

 

[Micheal]

Exactly! Is it racist that Steven actually used this mans talent as a joke? I don't think so.

This film is anything but racist.

P.S. I found the ending of this film to be perfect!
Very "old Hollywood".