Truth Be Told: The pitfalls of creative license and lessons learned from the 'Greenbook' Oscar win

By Mona Austin

Learn more about the history of the real Green Book

You can't entrust your story to just anyone.  And if you are not around to speak for yourself, hopefully someone with whom you have had a relationship will tell your truth.

Directed by Peter Farrelly, the movie Green Book was trending during this year's award season Twitter for all the wrong reasons.  The film got attention following the release of the 2020 Oscar nominations for being the example of a picture that did not deserve to win.  That it was inauthentic  for a non-fictional work, used a "White Savior" focal point and was no where near as successful commercially as its 2019 Oscar contenders, "Black Panther" or "Roma," and it was recognized with a higher honor than either of the two, were cause for the controversy.
The film has been regurgitated upon by many critics and surprisingly came out on top.

Judging by the group of Best Picture nominees this year, worthier films were sacked for "Green Book-grade" ones.  Thus, we arrive at this moment where a thorough analysis of how the faulty film came to be and what creators with a conscience might learn from its failure, despite it arguable success.

"Green Book" is not about Donald Shirley, but he was the focal point and selling point of the film.  Dr. Donald Shirley was a Jamaican-American piano virtuoso who gained wealth and popularity in the 1960s.  The movie "Green Book," minted with an Academy Award for Best Picture, was "inspired by" his story. These two pharases -- "inspired by" and "based on a true story" -- give license to producers and creators to embellish where they want without any accountability to honoring truth.  the problem is that in movies that are based on a true story there is enough factual detail to be believable.  Sometimes creators' imaginations go wild and their treatment of some details can be interwoven into a story and a consumer may never know the difference between fact and fiction.  In this case, controversy that started when the movie first came out in November of 2018 was inflated with the honor.  

The movie looks at the interracial business relationship of a black man and white man in the 1960s, but not just any black man.  Ron Shirley was a celebrity entertainer who frequently played at Carnegie Hall. Although on polar opposite ends of the spectrum, their relationship started when Dr. Shirley had the bright idea to hire a white driver to get around the South for a music tour.   

The movie was named after the literal Green Book, which  was a travel guide used at the time to keep Black travelers safe, providing stops where Blacks were welcome in the Jim Crow South.  The bouncer-turned-chauffeur/bodyguard relied on the Green Book to avoid areas where Blacks were banned on their route to Shirley's gigs.  The fact that Shirley was a remarkable talent brings relevance to the movie, without which it would not have had s much value and would have at best bee categorized.  Highligting Shirley's bio gave the film the size an strength it needed to make it to the big screen. At the same time, where it not for the movie, for most of us Shirley would  have remained a hidden figure and most people today would not have known of the Green Book.

“As the only living brother of Dr. Donald W. Shirley, I, Maurice E. Shirley, Sr. am compelled to respond to this article. In agreement with Malcolm X who proffered that ‘every White man in America profits directly or indirectly from his position vis-a-vis Negroes, profits from racism even though he does not practice it or believe it.’ This movie, “The Green Book” is NOT about MY brother, but about money, white privilege, assumption, and Tony Lip!”

The above quote is from Shirley's brother, who in the time frame the movie encapsulated was not in his life. Yet, he came forth to voice his concern about Mr. Lip taking advantage of his deceased relative’s name for financial gain.

What viewers learned about Shirley on screen was the interpretation of the  son of Tony Lip, who produced the film. If Vallelonga is being honest when he says everything in the film is true, then the word "based on a true story" should not have been used.   Shirley's  family would not have immediately protested its release on the basis of its accuracy.  Something is askew here.  His nephew Edwin also said Shirley did not want the movie made. 

“I remember very, very clearly, going back 30 years, my uncle had been approached by Nick Vallelonga, the son of Tony Vallelonga, about a movie on his life, and Uncle Donald told me about it,” Edwin said. “He flatly refused.”  

Edwin tried to convince his uncle that he would be involved to ensure the movie would represent him properly, but  he insists his uncle still refused.  Consequently, Hollywood continued its history of taking creative license to white wash and romanticize Black History to satiate White psychological fragility in a film that now has top honors. Producers can not can  continue release garnished slice-of-life content that presents a false story if the Academy expects to be respected.  Perhaps it is  necessary to created another genre for creatively fluid non-fictional pictures about humans.  

This Italian family treated the life of a real person as source material to make their relative look more honorable.  The Vallelonga's did not have the respect to acknowledge Following the Oscars, speaking to press Nick Vallelonga,who was played in the film by Viggo Mortensen said he did not know Dr. Shriley had any living relatives.  He also admitted Shirley had reservations, but said he was given the go ahead with conditions, contradicting Edwin's story.

“If you’re discussing the Don Shirley family thing, that falls on me; but Don Shirley himself told me to not speak to anyone,” Vallelonga said.

“He protected his private life and all the things, other things about him, miraculous things about him,” Vallelonga said of the genre-bending musician. “He told me, ‘If you’re going to tell the story, you tell it from your father, me. No one else. Don’t speak to anyone else. That’s how you have to make it.’ And, also, he told me, ‘Don’t make it until after I pass away.’”

This account of the background for the film too seems  shady.  

It is abundantly obvious that "Hollywood" and more specifically the Vallelonga family  benefited from Shirley's story, but the controversy had already begun to spread, which appears to be the reason they did not acknowledge it in any of the acceptance speeches when the film won three Oscars on February 24, 2019.  

When Regina King won Best Supporting Actress for "If Beale Street Could Talk" she first acknowledged writer James Baldwin from whose book the movie was adapted. 

The silence  agitated folks. The more socially powerful took a slice of a man's life and took advantage of it.   

The fact that Mahershala Ali was cast as the supporting actor (for which he won the Oscar) instead of being billed as the top character is evidence that White folks got the glory out of a Black man's story and could not give him top billing.  But, this also speaks to the fact that the family wanted the attention on their relative.  

Arguably, the life of Villelonga would not have been of interest to Hollywood were it not for his affiliation with Shirley.  Dr. Shirley made his story relevant, not the other way around.  A Black upper-crust, highly educated, highly esteemed musician and a White bouncer would be improper associates, even today.  

But the way the main characters were portrayed underscores the racist sentiment inherent  that any White person is better than a  and day and as unrealistic. Hollywood was opportunistic in pursuing this work. Even if he was of no physical value and was not a mental asset, having a white man by his side gave cover to Shirley  living out his dreams.

Steven Spielberg has the respect of Black people because when he directed The Color Purple he first consulted with Blacks and took their feedback into account.  The Vallengos were expected to do the same.  This happens all the time with biographical films.  

The entire conflict was caused by the pitfalls of creative licensing.  But the responsibility does not rest soley on creators.

This is about holding the Academy accountable.  As the voting body of the Oscars the Academy is the power structure that has the ability to build and tear down stereotypes based on the decisions it makes.  The concern must always be about authenticity.