An Inspired Duet: “The Soloist”
by Guest Contributor Rebecca Linz
I was looking forward to “The Soloist” for two reasons: having played the violin all my life, I love those rare contemporary films that dare to explicitly appreciate classical music, but also because I am a sucker for based-on-a-true-story films.
The dynamic between the two protagonists (Jamie Foxx as Nathaniel Ayers, a Julliard-trained cellist turned homeless man suffering from what appears to be schizophrenia and Robert Downey Jr. as Steve Lopez, an L.A. Times reporter) evolves from a relationship between a potentially successful article topic and a struggling journalist into a mutual friendship. “I’ve never loved anything as much as he loves music,” Lopez muses in awe about his subject. Flashbacks into Ayers’s childhood reveal that his mental illness was probably always present but began to torment Ayers during his time at Julliard when he was a college student (which is a common age for symptoms of schizophrenia appear).
Among the voices that haunt Ayers’s mind is a woman telling him: “They’re white, heartless aren’t they? . . . Turn you white . . . Whiteness, whiteness, whiteness,” which not-too-subtlety reminds the viewers that Ayers is one of very few students of color (and the only African American student that we see) at Julliard.
When I see a film that I enjoy or that makes me think, it is generally after I have left the theater or turned off the TV that I look to see what critics thought of it in order to avoid having the opinions of “experts” keep me from seeing a film I’m interested in. For example, I was recently shocked to find that “Spinning into Butter,” the recent film starring Sarah Jessica Parker about the administration’s response to a racially-based hate crime on a college campus, was almost universally loathed (I loved it). I was similarly surprised when a quick Internet search of reviews of this film revealed a plethora of viewers dismissing this film and its two stars (both Foxx and Downey, Jr.) as a typically racist tale of white superiority and the exploitation of the downtrodden black à la “Dangerous Minds.”
I disagree with this opinion, but upon some further reflection, I believe this reaction comes partially from the race status of the two actors. The movie poster, for example, shows Foxx cast in shadows and looking down: black, disheveled, poor. In the background is Downey, Jr. looking directly at the viewer: white, relatively well-dressed, and lucid. Criticisms have been made that a white actor was cast as Lopez, but upon further research, I see that the real Steve Lopez is of Spanish descent and physically resembles Robert Downey Jr. Another element is the fact that Lopez’s point of view dominates; we are rarely given the direct perspective of Ayers. This stems from Ayers’s unstable mental status, however, and not his race; flashbacks provide glimpses into Ayers’s psyche, but we as viewers, like Lopez, can only speculate about what is really going on in Ayers’s mind.
I see this film less as a commentary on race relations than on class relations. Lopez is visibly out of his comfort zone as he immerses himself into the streets and shelter where Ayers resides. The articles he writes do help bring money and attention to the homeless community in Los Angeles, but the problems of drug addiction, mental illness, and police brutality toward the homeless are not glossed over in the film. It could be argued that it was exploitative to cast not actors but real homeless individuals as the men and women in the shelter, but this realism provides potential for increased awareness that hiring actors could simply not provide. Those who critiqued Lopez for exploiting Ayers, including his editor and ex-wife in the film (played by Catherine Keener, who, in one of the few lines spoken by a woman in the entire film, jokingly encourages him to “keep . . . exploiting him like you are now” to further his career. This is spoken at an awards ceremony where Lopez receives a prize for his columns on Ayers who is, unsurprisingly, not invited.
Lopez voices his conflicting feelings regarding his overwhelming desire to help this man who, he does not deny, was at first merely a subject for an interesting story to save his career. As the movie poster states, the dynamic between the two men evolves into an “unlikely friendship” that, despite the odds, eventually becomes an egalitarian relationship. This evolution takes its time as Lopez and Ayers first address each other as “Nathaniel” and “Mr. Lopez” respectively. Yet Lopez is disconcerted when Ayers begins referring to him reverentially as “a god.” This additional (and unnecessary) reminder of the power dynamic between the two men makes the viewers’ uncomfortable as well, but Lopez comes to realize that he has indeed been condescending toward his subject/friend, and he insists on formalizing how he addresses his friend from “Nathaniel” to “Mr. Ayers.”
The film culminates at a concert where, while watching in fascination as Ayers immerses himself in the pleasure of the music, Lopez admits that besides providing Ayers with a cello and an apartment, “Maybe our friendship has helped him. But maybe not.” It is clear, however, that Lopez has “learned the dignity of being loyal to something you believe in” from Ayers. As a Beethoven symphony swells and the credits appear, the duet of characters attempt to become a trio, just as the image of the cello in the movie poster attempts to become a third protagonist. A message of this film suggests that music can bridge social and racial divides. But as the cameras scan the well-dressed, primarily white audience in the concert hall, it is clear that music, much like Lopez’s newspaper articles, is limited in the amount of concrete good that it can do.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Linda Ware wrote:
That Ayers learns something about his life from an otherwise “downtrodden” individual who lives with dignity is contrary to the tenets of an ableist society (and those who typically review films). I wonder how this film would work against creative non-fiction accounts such as Ron Suskind’s A Hope in the Unseen (1998)–a book that is often touted as extraordinary, assigned by college’s in pursuit of understanding the race divide in higher education. My read was otherwise, it was really unsettling to read this book (required by my college for incoming freshman) written by a journalist who characterizes the main character through his own exploitative lens despite his otherwise good intentions.
Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 9:28 am ¶
Sara wrote:
I haven’t seen the film, but I did read the book, and it sounds like the movie’s a pretty decent adaptation (aside from the whole editor/ex-wife thing – he’s happily married in the book). Lopez writes with a good deal of self-awareness about his own privilege, as a neurotypical, middle-class white man helping a mentally ill homeless black man, and the inevitable conflicts that arise. It’s clear that he struggles with the “white savior” mentality, especially as he becomes aware that he’s not going to fix Ayers or, even, the endemic problems of the homeless population of L.A. all by himself. It’s a thoughtful exploration of privilege and friendship across class/racial lines, with no easy answers.
Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 10:21 am ¶
erin wrote:
@Linda – “That Ayers learns something about his life from an otherwise “downtrodden” individual who lives with dignity is contrary to the tenets of an ableist society”
I think I disagree a bit. I think what you say is true, but I also think that there is a tendency to romanticize, almost, people with mental and developmental disabilities…i.e. “this poor handicapped person taught ME a valuable life lesson!” (the “ME” always being non-mentally or developmentally disabled.
Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 11:30 am ¶
prvlgd cdn wrote:
I haven’t seen the film (and I’m generally put off by based-on-true-stories), but the thumbnail outlines make it sound like it’s pretty much typical of (and I may have picked this idea up up from this site) the “magical negro” type story–Bagger Vance, The Green Mile, Bruce Almighty, and maybe that issue of Green Arrow/Green Lantern with the riot against the tenement owner.
If the actual film transcends that genre, that’s a good.
Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 11:54 am ¶
brownstocking wrote:
it just felt from previews it was going to be like that danny glover film, and i’m over the “white savior who ends up being saved” trope.
now, this movie may not be that, but that’s what it looks like. as much as i heart robert, i can’t pay for a jamie vehicle in god conscience.
Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 1:07 pm ¶
brownstocking wrote:
shoot, i meant “good” conscience.
Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 1:07 pm ¶
Rebecca Linz wrote:
@Sara, I thought it was a strange choice to make Steve’s editor his EX-wife in the movie since they are still married in real life. I really am puzzled over why the filmmakers chose to do this since, as several folks mentioned, other facts were accurately portrayed in the movie. The only thing I can think of is that the filmmakers decided it would be more powerful to have Steve and Nathaniel both acting as independent agents. Also, Hollywood seems to hate long-lasting, happy marriages.
Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 2:19 pm ¶
jstele wrote:
Lopez wrote an LA Times article saying that the movie was not a true adaptation of the book, but very far off. One needs to be careful when criticizing a writer based on a movie adaptation of his book. So he may have invited Ayers to the ceremony.
Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 3:16 pm ¶
Joy wrote:
I just watched this movie with my mom and cousin and LOVED it. I do not think it’s the typical “white savior/downtrodden POC” at all. I think it is probably pretty accurate about what could have happened (of course a movie will not exactly track real life). And I like how it ended – that was more realistic than a “cured” Ayers playing in the final concert. I did not get the feeling that the journalist was anymore patronizing than another person would have been in the same situation. (As in, I probably would have told my new homeless acquaintance he/she couldn’t hang out outside my workplace.)
Well, I’m starting to ramble, but I definitely give this film TWO THUMBS UP. I think it draws attention to the stigmatization of the homeless and those with mental illnesses (as well as the relationship between the two). I think these two elements were more the focus rather than race. But, of course race was still there, because it always is. I just think it was just more in the background than the foreground of this movie.
Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 10:00 pm ¶
Tracey wrote:
I hadn’t realized what the voices were saying – and reading this I think of my Inuit-Scots uncle who became schizophrenic when he attended Memorial University in St John’s Newfoundland – coming from Labrador (the northern half of a province which is now officially Newfoundland and Labrador with Labrador having 30% Aboriginal population). I am continuing to ponder his experience, as he also dropped out from University. Happily he remained in my grandparents’ home and did not become a homeless statistic.
As a child I noticed that he had pictures of Native peoples on his walls; everything was so hush hush about his illness and I assumed then that the pictures were ’sick’…however now see that part of his struggle was with race and his own identity as an Aborginal man – or at least with Aboriginal roots in Canada.
I am so thankful for your blog – a place to discuss all the ways that race affects.
Posted 25 Aug 2009 at 7:50 pm ¶
Nancy wrote:
What I took from this movie was that there are lots of people who think they know what is best for others, but the dignity of each human life can only be expressed by free will. Liberals and conservatives alike think they know what is best for each human in their relationships, how they spend their money, what they eat and what they breathe.
This was a movie about human dignity, not race.
I loved it, especially the final reflection that I played three times and googled to get the full quote.
“I can tell you that by witnessing Mr. Ayers’s courage, his humility, his faith in the power of his art, I’ve learned the dignity of being loyal to something you believe in. Of holding onto it above all else. Of believing, without question, that it will carry you home.”
Posted 08 Sep 2009 at 4:42 pm ¶
Roseanna wrote:
I think this Times review best sums up my issues with this film*:
‘If Ayers hadn’t been a gifted musician, Lopez would just have walked away, leaving another homeless, helpless black man to rot on the streets. But Ayers is no ordinary, homeless black man — he is a white liberal’s wet dream of a homeless black man. He’s not a crack-smoking, foul-mouthed black man with a passion for the works of Snoop Dogg. No, he’s a cultured black man who loves Beethoven! And he’s polite and well mannered. “I apologise for my appearance, I’ve had a few setbacks in life,” he says to Lopez, whom he always addresses as “Mr Lopez”.’
Ultimately, Ayers is given value in this film not because he is a human being with a right to respect, dignity and happiness by virtue of this, but because he happens to be a good musician. Not just that, even – because he happens to be good at playing a particular kind of music popular among wealthy white people. That is the only reason Lopez has any interest in him. Personally, I don’t find that heart warming, but racist, exploitative and depressing.
* If I ignore the offensive hyperbolic characterisation of what I assume is supposed to be “other people’s” idea of an ‘ordinary, homeless black man’.
Posted 03 Oct 2009 at 9:57 am ¶