by Sam Juliano
‘There was a real Miss Daisy. She was a friend of my grandmother’s in Atlanta, back in the forties when I was a child. She was a “maiden lady” as we called it then, the last of a big family, and she lived in what I remember as a spooky old Victorian house. There was a Hoke, too. he was the sometime bartender at our German-Jewish country club, and I believe, he supplemented his income by bartending at private parties around town. And Boolie…well, I really didn’t know him, but he was the brother of my dear Aunt Marjorie’s friend Rosalie, They were real people all right, but I have used only their names in creating the three characters in ‘Driving Miss Daisy….’ –Alfred Uhry, playright.
Driving Miss Daisy was the first play that Alfred Uhry composed, and he based it on people he had known growing up in the South, particularly his grandmother and her driver. The play’s original schedule called for it to run for five weeks at Playrights Horizon, a New York nonprofit theatre that seated an audience of seventy-four. When the run was up, the play was extended another five weeks, and when that was up, it moved to a bigger theatre. A year and a half later, the show was still playing in New York, and around the country, and it soon won the Pultizer Prize.
Warner Brothers hired gifted Australian director Bruce Beresford (Breaker Morant, Black Robe) to helm the film version, which would feature Uhry’s own adapted screenplay. While on stage the story was negotiated with minimal sets, (chairs representing car seats were basically the components) the film version allows for some lovely rural indulgence, in and around Atlanta, Georgia where the film takes place, beginning in 1948. “Miss Daisy” Werthan is a crotchety, parsimonious and exceedingly stubborn widow of seventy-two years, who, while insisting she can still drive, must nonetheless bow to the wishes of her son Boolie and insurance companies who are threatening to drop her after she backs the car into a sharp decline on the grounds near her home. The alternative forced upon her is a black chauffeur named Hoke, who is known to Boolie to be a reliable and honest man. Hoke states that he’s thrilled that the Werthans are Jewish, as from past experiences he’s found them much easier to work for than the predominant Baptists of the Deep South. But in Miss Daisy he meets someone unlike anyone he’s ever encountered. She’s ornery and taciturn, and wearing her down turns out to be a formidable task that requires more servitude than he would ordinarily impart. A proud and respectful man who is about sixty years old when the film begins, Hoke is an unemployed, uneducated African American, who previously worked as a deliveryman. His patience and loyalty eventually brings out the latent humanity in Miss Daisy, and over a period of twenty-five years in these two lives (with Boolie providing an occasional, often exasperated intrusion) the relationship morphs from discord to deep harmony and friendship. Cynical moviegoers may scoff at the final scene, when a touching realization is vocalized, but it’s the final coda in a film that is about the intimacy and true meaning of friendship.
Uhry can never be blamed for taking the easy road. Hence Miss Daisy often reflects on her difficult childhood and the years she struggled as a schoolteacher, but she’s not a magnanimous soul, and seldom smiles. She even criticizes the modest salary Hoke receives directly from Boolie (she begrudgingly refers to it as “highway robbery”) but slowly, Hoke reaches her and removes her predilection for suspicion and isolation. Still, she retains her unforgiving nature to the end. Uhry even suggests that Miss Daisy is socially constricted to ever fully accept Hoke as her equal despite her impassioned attendance at a Martin Luther King rally, and the bombing of the synagogue that Boolie has been driving her to. Despite the generally excellent reviews the film garnered upon release and a subsequent Best Picture Award from the National Board of Review and the Oscar for Best Picture, there is a sizable minority who have always taken issue with the social status of the relationship here, where blacks are treated as second-rate citizens. Uhry’s aim was to present the prevailing social mores of the time and not to pass judgement on the changes brought on by time and social unrest. Interestingly enough, director Spike Lee was highly critical of the film as well, as he felt it painted blacks in a bad light, and promoted the typical stereotypes. Yet, there’s an undeniable universality in the story of a person who changes after dealing with the the long-held object of racial disdain and mistrust (earlier on she passes a crack that implies that all black people are thieves after she announced a can of salmon from her pantry has been pilfered) head-on, opening one’s eyes to the other side of the human coin. Basically in a sociological sense the film (and play before it) presents a kind of overview of the changing values and times in the South, spanning as it does from 1948 to 1972, while alluding to racism and prejudice. It’s focus on the relationship between two people allows for a more personalized view of historical realities, without a trace of contrivance.
The film’s third major character is Boolie, who appears to be in his early 40’s in the opening scenes. He’s a successful businessman, who took over his father’s printing company, and he eventually develops into one of the city’s leading business figures. As such he is mostly conscious of how he will be perceived by society, so he dismisses his mother’s liberal turn and humorously pokes fun at her stubborn ways. Yet he’s fiercely loyal to her right up to the quietly powerful final scene, regularly visiting her and seeing to her needs.
Cinematographer Peter James helps Beresford to negotiate a lovely picturesque look to the film, and the muted colors are enlivened by the seasnal changes and the weather, both of which give this film a strong sense of place and local flavor. In the film’s most breathlessly beautiful sequence, a montage-like progrssion of images of the quaint house, peach blossoms and flower patches are given sublime aural accompaniment with composer Hans Zimmer’s use of one of opera’s most ravishing arias, Dvorak’s “Hymn to the Moon” from Rusalka. Zimmer’s inobstrusive music for the remainder of the film is properly bittersweet, serving only to musically define a time and aplace within the context of a personal relationship. Rarely has Zimmer written something this subtle.
For all her years on stage and in films, it is doubtful that Jessica Tandy was ever handed a role this rich or resonant, one imbued with humor and poignancy. Tandy creates a woman who seems to often make the wrong call, but one who never loses site of herself, and the great actress employs understatement to excellent effect. What on ecan see most persuasively by Tandy’s uncompromising mannerisms here is intelligence, which always seems to win out over the evident fragility. Daisy is a feast of a role for a veteran actress and Tandy is utterly extraordinary.
Morgan Freeman, who played the role on stage first, has most of the film’s funniest lines, and his characterization of a non-aggressive type ranks among the most resonant and appealing of his career. He has probed beneath his character’s surface, and in some climactic dramatic moments he’s deeply affecting. Although both Tandy and freeman could be seen as highly theatrical, what with the stage beginnings, there’s a homespun realism that is successfully translated in cinematic terms. A symbol or device, the character of Boolie is a full-bodied and loving son, who hasn’t lost his humor nor humanity as old age intrudes upon all. Dan Akroyd, who has always considered this his favorite performance, makes this character transcends his dramatic limitations with an effectively-accented, appealing turn that perfectly complements the superlative work of the two leads. As Boolie’s wife Florine, Patti LuPone gets that slight ‘chip’ down pat, and Esther Rolle is both funny an dmoving as Daisy’s hosekeeper. In a film fueled by acting, Driving Miss Daisy delivers in a big way in the most vital aspect.
In his unwavering attention to humanity and the relationships between people in the face of social obstacles and obstinate character traits, Driving Miss Daisy is one of the most evocative American films of the 1980’s, and an unqualified triumph for Beresford, Uhry and the marvelous cast. It’s a trap for snobs.
Boy, do I admire the chutzpah of writing up a film like this. I don’t have a very high opinion of it myself, but that’s not really important. It’s easy for it to run into some percieved racism here and there (any movie on race relations that wasn’t agressively progressive was bound to be seen as upholding the old status quo, especially by then-up and coming firebrand Spike Lee), but this film is has no malice at all in its heart. It’s nothing but good will, all around– far too much, in fact, for many filmgoers (including myself, admittedly) but you can never fault it for having anything less than good intentions. Uhry sees race relations with a perspective that’s about as informed and open as you can expect a portrayal of the South from that generation to be.
I think part of Lee’s dislike of the film was the way it was honored by the Academy Awards, while his film, “Do the Right Thing”, was shut out, save for two nominations. It’s safe to say that Lee made the better film– his picture of a hot day and hotter tempers in Bed-Stuy was an instant classic, one of those movies that deserved all the recognition and awards it was far too provocative and daring to ever stand a chance of winning, in its day– but there’s no reason to hate “Driving Miss Daisy”, at least not for political reasons. I’m sure there’ll be plenty who’ll argue against the film for aesthetic and cinematic reasons, but I’ll just acknoweledge it with the respect it’s earned, over the years.
It’s not my cup of tea, or even anywhere near the same ballpark of rhetorical beverages, but it’s certainly not as poisonous as cynics and critics insist. It’s a film that doesn’t have anything against anyone, so I’ll not have anything against it.
“Boy, do I admire the chutzpah of writing up a film like this.”
Love it Bob! LOL!!!!
Well, I give you credit for acknowledging that the film has ‘no malice in its heart.’
Actually, while there are cynics here for sure (my last line was aimed directly at them) we can’t overlook the fact that the “critics” were overwhelmingly favorable when the film released. Kael, Canby, Kauffmann and many others issued effusive praise. After it won its Best Picture Oscar, the typical backlash ensued. For every nine favorable reactions there was only one negative. It’s not the greatest film ever made, but I have always held a place in my heart for it, and every viewing has stirred me greatly.
DO THE RIGHT THING is of course one of the great movies of the 80’s and for my money Spike Lee’s masterpiece.
Thanks for the terrific response here, as always.
Back-to-back great write-ups. And films as different as night and day. A film doesn’t have to be cerebral or extravagently entertaining to work. It’s the small observations here, coupled with two of the greatest performances ever committed to film that make this ‘chamber’ piece fly.
How true on both points Joe. Thanks for the kind words.
This is the easiest kind of film to dismiss, as it is exceedingly sentimental. I like the term Joe used. It is a chamber drama and it seemed to spawn a series of films about relationships, set in the deep south…Fried Green Tomatoes, Steel Magnolias come to mind. To look at it in sociological terms, and to find fault with the premise is to miss the larger point. I think you framed it perfectly there in another review of depth and insight. It’s a simple film about how an unlikely friendship can transcend generations, and stand as a testament to the human spirit.
“Fried Green Tomatoes”– a movie that would’ve been perfectly fine if it didn’t force-feed us the dreadful Kathy Bates frame-tale and/or allowed its heroines to step out of the closet. “Steel Magnolias”– a pointlessly written, yet shockingly casted piece of three-hanky fluff. As far as ensembles go, it’s the “Glengarry Glen Ross” of chick-flicks.
Remember that the original novel (and it was a great one) “Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe” by Fannie Flagg made the lesbian relationship far more pronounced. If anything, the film did little to stress it aside from one groping scene in a kitchen. And what’s wrong with having lesbians in the story? As far as “Steel Magnolias” I won’t oppose you there, as I really don’t care for the film.
I don’t care for it either, but I can at least stand back in respectful awe of any film that’s able to rope in Julia Roberts, Daryl Hannah and Dolly Parton all at once, not to mention the Flying Nun and Michael Dukakis’ cousin. It even has Chuck Yeager and the Captain of the Nostromo on board– seriously, how did so many decently talented (or at least decently proportioned) people get involved?
And yes, “FGT” is all the more frustrating in comparison to the daring of the source material. Between that and “The Color Purple”, lesbian love stories seem to have a tendency to be watered down in the south. It’s too bad, because what could’ve been a romantic, erotic and altogether provocative story found itself castrated and turned into little more than a soggy, sobby female bonding movie. I wonder how many women out there who adore that film even understand what it’s really supposed to be about…
The cast in “Steel Magnolias” is the draw, I don’t doubt it. I think “Fried Green Tomatoes” mostly worked, in the way it tapped into sentiment, and did so without being cloy. Sam mentions Hans Zimmer’s score in “Driving Miss Daisy” as an essential component, but I would pose that Thomas Newman’s music in this Jon Avnet film was quite effective too.
It does tap into sentiment without being cloy, but that’s only because of the ambient noise of ever-so-subtle sexual tension. Were that tension allowed to blossom into something more, even into something as chaste and discrete as a Disney-style kiss of true love (the ultimate fairy-tale) then we would’ve had something that genuinely deserved all the expertly honed sentiment. The movie would’ve worked so well as a mainstream same-sex romance, it’s frustrating as hell to see its wings clipped. “Fried Green Tomatoes” could have and should have been a heartfelt, moving picture about two women in love, but instead, they live by the code of two of the most painful words one can ever hear when emotions run as high and hot as they do in that film– “just friends”.
Interesting discourse here! Thanks again Frank for those comparitive insights. Bob, as you can almost predict, I love FRIED GREEN TOMATOES too, and will be writing an essay on it for the 90’s poll.
First, I agree with Bob that “Do the Right Thing” is the better film, which was too provocative to receive the accolades that “Daisy” received. That said, for me, “Daisy” is a mixed bag, a bit syrupy, yet beautifully photographed, magnificently acted and a emotionally heartfelt film.
I remember walking out of the theater disliking myself for having a soft spot for this most touching film. In my mind, I saw myself as way too cynical to like this kind of stuff, yet…well, maybe not.
Ah John, don’t feel too guilty. I have always believed that this film earned it’s tears. Thanks again for the personal anecdote.
Beautiful, beautiful review Sam. I have always loved this film, and have been moved by it. Jessica Tandy is a national treasure. I was so happy when she won the Oscar.
She certainly is Maria. Thanks ever so much.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!! Has Allan swallowed his tonque yet and gone into fevered convulsions???? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!! Gotta say Schmulee, you really got a pair!
Why, a pair? 90% of critics and most affluent audiences adore the film. I have found that only bloggers, age 20 to 29 find a way to disparage it, as it seems fashionable. That said, a good part of our readership are age 20 to 29, and I wouldn’t want to lose their regular insights. Are you listening, my good friend Bob?
most affluent audiences adore the film.
You heard it here first: rich people love Driving Miss Daisy. That sounds about right, actually. The film itself is utter “magical Negro” silliness and heaped-on sentiment, but I guess some people like it. Carry on…
Touche Ed. I earned that, and as I was leaving the school a few minutes ago, I thought someone rightfully should take me to task. My frustrations sometimes do lead me to make some ludicrous generalizations. DAISY is exceedingly sentimental, no question about that, but it all comes down to who is willing to accept it. There are some films that make me feel silly for my penchant for emotionalism, but I never felt that way here. It does have some startling support in the critical ranks, but on the other hand some like yourself find it sickeningly sacharine. Allan is with you here as well, and he’s in his mid-30’s so my age contention fell through! Ha! Thanks for listening and responding. Did you feel the two leads did well, in any case?
Firstly, I love the idea of Jessica Tandy being a national treasure when she wasn’t actually American but a Londoner from Hackney who learnt her trade working with Gielgud.
Secondly, my feelings on this cinematic (which I use in its broadest sense) debacle are well known. By including it in the same sentence as the word “exceptional” Sam has put the Moron in Oxymoron. Indeed, any critic who praises this film instantly deserves the epithet “not to be taken remotely seriously from now on”. It’s sentimental hogwash, well-acted, but otherwise having no reason to exist other than to be used as torture if ever the Ludivico technique became reality and they ran out of footage of World War II – perhaps achieving the best unbearable levels when played together with 1980s pop excrement song Agadoo over and over on a loop. As for Steel Magnolias and Fried Green Pomegranates (it couldn’t have been any worse than Tomatoes), don’t even mention those similar AADs.
The leads are fine for what they’re given. And your review is good; it’s just not gonna convince me to overcome my negative response to, as you say, the “sacharine” and tedious nature of its script. I generally don’t like feeling jerked around by sentimentality like this, even (or especially) when it’s in service to a super-serious and super-obvious “message” like “racism is bad,” and especially when said message is undercut by the film’s own condescension towards its black characters.
Ed renders a cogent, respectful, complimentary and rational dissent, (and there are others who would agree with him in a second) which I greatly appreciate……….but Allan is back to the Ludivico technique attacks! Ha! Still, I am laughing my ass off.
You can all say what you will. However, Schmulee and I haver had this discussion dozens of times and we are both in firm agreement that this year, 1989, could have been one of the best years in film since the creation of the medium. By December it was a veritable team of knock-outs slipping into the theatres one after another. DRIVING MISS DAISY is a film that I like, and agree earns its tears. I was also smitten with Jim Sheridan’s biopic on painter Christy Brown, MY LEFT FOOT (with that astonishing Oscar winning performance by then almost unknown Daniel Day-Lewis). DO THE RIGHT THING, GLORY, HENRY V and others were main courses on a rather large serving table. For me though, the very best came from Woody Allen. His haunting and morally probing examination of spituality and guilt, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS blew me away. Not only the best film of 1989, but, probably, his best film in an illustrious canon of work.
I was also big on the slam bang gee whiz ingenuity of WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT. Disney literally revived the film musical with their charming taqke on Hans Christen Anderson’s THE LITTLE MERMAID. FIELD OF DREAMS was an enormous crowd pleaser with heart and Americana to spare. The only Oliver Stone film I ever championed, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY caught me. Who could resist the casting and, ultimately, the over-the-top gang-busters Jack Nicholson commited as The Joker in Tim Burtons visually arresting BATMAN. And, in its SPECIAL DIRECTORS CUT, I had a lotta nice things to say about James Cameron’s underwater Sci-Fi flick, THE ABYSS (a noteworthy retelling of the classic THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL). No, no, 1989 was a cup of film overflowing with goodies.
The best film of 1989 is Branagh’s HENRY V. (CINEMA PARADISO is actually a 1988 film, as per it’s Italian release) But you got most of them Dennis. I would add in no particular order:
The Cook, the Thief His Wife and Her Lover (Greenaway)
Jesus of Montreal (Arcand)
Last Exit to Brooklyn (Edel)
Dead Poets Society (Weir)
Drugstore Cowboy (Van Sant)
Creature Comforts (Nick Park)
Santa Sangre (Jodorowsky)
A Village Romeo and Juliet (Weigl)
Monsieur Hire (Leconte)
Sex, Lies and Videotape (Soderbergh)
The Match Factory Girl (Kaurismaki)
Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down (Almodovar)
Kiki’s Delivery Service (Miyazaki)
The Mahabharata (Brook)
Allan continues to make claim that 1989 is one of the worst movie years, but it’s really one of the best on record, as our combined lists attest to.
Allan Fish really knows how to render constructive criticism moot. But I’m afraid I have to agree with both him and Mr. Howard on this film. I can understand and respect the reasons why people are affected by it, but it has no shame. Sam, again I commend you on some excellent writing.
Regardless of the quality of the film itself– this is one of the pictures that helped put Morgan Freeman on the map, so part of me will always appreciate it for that, even if I don’t really care about it on its own. Same thing with “Glory”, of the same year, although that movie has a little more going for it (not much, but hey, it paints the Union as kinda-sorta good guys in the Civil War– hooray for my side!).
And I doubt that Freeman has ever given a better performance in his whole career.
Fun, and funny discussion here.
A few things I’d like to add: 1) I’ve had fried green tomatoes at the actual Whistle Stop Cafe in Juliet, GA. I spent a summer there (GA I mean) in college while on internship with an advertising firm. I liked it so much in the deep south I vowed to myself at 22 that I’d never live there again. I’m also a pretty large Mary Stuart Masterson fan, here cropped ‘do in ‘Some Kind of Wonderful’ still really does it for me.
And, 2) A favorite film memory of my youth is when my parents rented ‘Steel Magnolias’ and when my mother cried at the end, I asked, completely stupefied, “Why are you crying?” To an answer of “You are such a jerk (or was it asshole?).” I’m still confused as to why anyone would cry during that picture (and I was 15 or so). Whoever called ‘Steel Magnolias’ “the ‘Glengarry Glen Ross’ of Chick Flicks”– Bravo. Very apt, and humorous.
To me sentimental/low brow 80’s treasure(s) are ‘Pee Wee’s Big Adventure’, ‘Who Framed Roger Rabbit’ (as someone mentioned), ‘Field of Dreams’, ‘The Natural’, ‘Christine’ ect.
I guess I’m one of the 20-29 year old internet jockeys Sam speaks of that loathes this picture… perhaps in one year I can understand why my mother cried during ‘Steel Magnolias’… ah ahoy to 30 (put’s head down at impending generic sentimentalism)…
As usual another great Sam piece though (2 in 2 days– what a streak), even if I don’t share the opinion.
Well thanks very much for that glowing compliment Jamie! Yeah, my pigeon-holing everyone there was admittedly over-the-top. So I take it the Fried Green Tomato country wasn’t exactly your thing eh? Ha!
In any case I will address your other fantstic comment under THE COOK THE THIEF thread shortly. I like Masterson too, and thanks for the personal anecdotes.