⚠️Atencion, posible SPOILER⚠️
⚠️Attention, possible SPOILER⚠️
Bienvenidos a un nuevo post para los amantes del cine y de las series, hoy hare una "review" de Green Book, una película que tenía muchas ganas de ver y que me encontré en Prime Video, aprovechando mi tiempo de comer la disfrute y fue como lo esperaba, una verdadera obra de arte audiovisual. Les dejo el link a continuación para que la vean, espero que disfruten mi publicación.
Welcome to a new post for movie and TV series lovers. Today I'll be reviewing Green Book, a film I've been wanting to see for a long time and found on Prime Video. While I was at lunch, I enjoyed it, and it was just as I expected: a true work of audiovisual art. I've left the link below for you to watch. I hope you enjoy my post.
La pelicula transcurre en el año 1962, en pleno apogeo de la segregación racial en el sur profundo de Estados Unidos y lo que pareciera una anécdota de dos vidas disímiles: la del pianista negro Don Shirley y la de su chófer italoamericano Tony Vallelonga. Se convierte en una reflexión urgente sobre cómo se construyen (y diluyen) las barreras entre “nosotros” y “los otros”, una verdadera critica racial y social, en la cual abunda la violencia institucional policiaca (tan criticada por mi en muchas ocasiones) y social (la violencia que sufren los negros).
The film takes place in 1962, at the height of racial segregation in the Deep South of the United States, and tells what appears to be an anecdote of two dissimilar lives: that of the Black pianist Don Shirley and that of his Italian-American chauffeur, Tony Vallelonga. It becomes an urgent reflection on how the barriers between "us" and "the others" are constructed (and dissolved), a true racial and social critique, in which institutional police violence (often criticized by me) and social violence (the violence suffered by Black people) abound.
Psicológicamente hablando, esta historia funciona como una catarata emocional en un ambiente donde la separación racial está legalmente institucionalizada, emerge una amistad forjada en la tensión del encuentro, el cuidado mutuo y el reconocimiento de la humanidad compartida, pero que dentro de todo este reconocimiento hay mucha pedagogia de la introspeccion.
Shirley, figura refinada, culta y segura de sí, representa una minoría erudita: un artista negro que, a pesar de su talento legítimo, en cambio Tony, brusco, sin filtro, hijo de inmigrantes italoamericanos, representa otra forma de marginación: un mundo donde la voz también se construye desde lo “bajo”, con gran orgullo barrial, aunque sabemos que su cultura es mucho mas violenta (reciprocramente) que los negros, que son los vulnerados sin animos de replica.
Psychologically speaking, this story functions as an emotional cataract in an environment where racial separation is legally institutionalized. A friendship emerges, forged in the tension of encounter, mutual care, and recognition of shared humanity, but within all this recognition lies a great pedagogy of introspection.
Shirley, a refined, cultured, and self-confident figure, represents an erudite minority: a Black artist who, despite his legitimate talent, Tony, on the other hand, brusque, unfiltered, son of Italian-American immigrants, represents another form of marginalization: a world where voice is also constructed from the "bottom," with great neighborhood pride, even though we know that their culture is much more violent (reciprocally) than that of Black people, who are the ones who are violated without any desire to respond.
Su convivencia es una coreografía emocional, se toleran, discuten, pero a la vez se salvan mutuamente de la exclusion que sufren en el mundo. Desde lo sociológico, el contraste es evidente: Shirley podría haber viajado con seguridad si su piel fuera blanca, y Tony podría pasar desapercibido si tuviera otro color. Ambos ocupan lugares distintos en la jerarquía social, la película lo muestra con humor, con brutalidad y también con cierta dulzura: cada escena une capas de conciencia y contradicción.
Their coexistence is an emotional choreography: they tolerate each other, argue, but at the same time save each other from the exclusion they suffer in the world. From a sociological perspective, the contrast is evident: Shirley could have traveled safely if her skin were white, and Tony could go unnoticed if he were any other color. They occupy different places in the social hierarchy, and the film shows this with humor, brutality, and also a certain sweetness: each scene unites layers of consciousness and contradiction.
Desde la psicología social, esa experiencia funciona como un quiebre identitario: Tony ve su propio prejuicio quebrantado, ya que al inicio de la pelicula vemos como tira (desecha) vasos que usaron negros al ir a su casa a reparar, denotandonos desde el inicio su postura rasista. Shirley se encuentra con una especie de aliado improbable y humano. No es un golpe de conciencia fácil, es torcido, es por momentos violento, es desgarrador, pero también es real.
Y aquí aparece un tema que no podemos soslayar: la película recibió críticas por presentar un relato de “salvador blanco”, donde la transformación moral está centrada en Tony, mientras que Shirley queda relegado a ser pasivo o victimizado (Estas palabras la saque de: The New YorkerTIME) y con la cual tengo en comun este criterio. Eso habla de cómo construimos revolución: ¿desde el héroe que abre los ojos, o desde el otro que habita el silencio? Esa tensión es parte de la discusión. La crítica señala que fue la mirada blanca la que narra la redención, y ello replantea cómo se representan históricamente los traumas de los colectivos oprimidos.
From a social psychological perspective, this experience functions as an identity fracture: Tony sees his own prejudice shattered, as at the beginning of the film we see him throw away glasses used by Black people when they went to his house to repair them, revealing his racist stance from the start. Shirley finds a kind of unlikely and human ally. It's not an easy shock to conscience; it's twisted, at times violent, heartbreaking, but it's also real.
And here arises a theme we cannot ignore: the film received criticism for presenting a "white savior" story, where the moral transformation is centered on Tony, while Shirley is relegated to being passive or victimized (I took these words from The New YorkerTIME), and with whom I share this criterion. This speaks to how we build revolution: from the hero who opens his eyes, or from the other who inhabits silence? That tension is part of the discussion. Critics point out that it was the white gaze that narrates redemption, and this reframes how the traumas of oppressed groups have been historically represented.
Ese viaje no sucede en un país amable. Ocurre en estados donde la ley decía que la oscuridad mataba a los negros si no estaban fuera del pueblo; donde un guía impreso, se convirtió en el mapa del miedo colectivo para las minorías. En ese contexto, la psicología del sobreviviente no es heroica: es resignada, tensional, vigilante. Cada descanso, cada descanso forzado, cada persona que cruza una mirada, era una decisión emocional.
Tony aprendió rápido que haber salido de ese Bronx no lo hacía inmune a prejuicios mayores. Y Shirley aprendió que su arte no lo blindaba de la violencia, sino que lo volvía blanco inevitable del sistema. El vínculo entre ellos es una terapia provisional contra el ruido de ese mundo: confiar, cuidar, sostener el otro en el límite.
That journey doesn't happen in a friendly country. It happens in states where the law stated that darkness killed Black people if they weren't out of town; where a printed guide became the map of collective fear for minorities. In that context, the psychology of the survivor isn't heroic: it's resigned, tense, vigilant. Every break, every forced rest, every person who meets a glance, was an emotional decision.
Tony quickly learned that leaving that Bronx didn't make him immune to greater prejudices. And Shirley learned that his art didn't shield him from violence, but rather made him an inevitable target of the system. The bond between them is a temporary therapy against the noise of that world: trust, care, support each other on the edge.
Green Book es un experimento emocional, una chispa en la historia de cómo dos mundos distintos (pero padecientes de algo similar) se encontraron en el camino. La relación negro–italoamericano, en ese sur hostil, se carga de significado psicológico: ahí se trabaja con el miedo, con la empatía, con la ruptura de prejuicios ancestrales.
Pero mirado desde afuera, se trata también de cómo queremos creer que el cambio viene de una mano blanca que se detiene frente al abismo. Y que no siempre fue así. Desde la sociología crítica, ese relato nos moviliza, pero también nos exige preguntarnos: ¿a quién contamos la historia y qué omite?
Al final, lo que queda flotando en el aire es un cruce humano poderoso: dos hombres que eligieron respetarse, cuidarse y verse. Eso, en 1962, ya fue una grieta: una grieta con ritmo de piano y puño de carne que lamentablemente no termina de cerrar, espero que pronto todo lo malo como el racismo se vaya desapareciendo de nuestras vivencias cotidianas.
Green Book is an emotional experiment, a spark in the story of how two different worlds (but suffering from something similar) met along the way. The Black-Italian relationship, in that hostile South, is charged with psychological significance: there, fear, empathy, and the breaking of age-old prejudices are worked on.
But viewed from the outside, it's also about how we want to believe that change comes from a white hand that stops at the abyss. And that it wasn't always that way. From a critical sociological perspective, this story moves us, but also forces us to ask: to whom are we telling the story and what is it omitting?
In the end, what remains floating in the air is a powerful human intersection: two men who chose to respect each other, care for each other, and see each other. That, in 1962, was already a rift: a rift with a piano rhythm and a flesh fist that unfortunately never heals. I hope that soon all the bad things, like racism, will disappear from our daily experiences.
[Source](https://screenrant.com/)
[Source](https://screenrant.com/)
When I saw this movie I was glad for the work made by the director Gareth Edwards, you can see the heart he put in this movie and how he achieved to give us a good movie even though he didn't have those huge budged as other franchises. Some scenes look very real even though you know its not, makes it feel natural plus the CGI into it, the way Edwards present the robots is way closer to humans, contradictory but necessary and the relationship between humans and the AI, all working together without feel it was force, also you can notice the influence from some movies like Blade Runner, District 9 and even the anime Akira, all those vibes you can see them mixed and working in a way that the Edwards took the best parts of each one and didn´t made a copy, you notice that that influence made him create his own story and is unique, after watching the movie I ask myself from where he got all this inspiration and yes in fact he did from Akira and some others similar, good things are worth imitating. The center of the story is Joshua and the AI kid named Alfie, Joshua needed Alfie to find his wife and in that journey the create a bond that never will be broken. John David Washington plays Joshua in this movie and the son of the goat Denzel Washington is making his own path and here he did a great job. Madeleine Yuna Voyles plays Alfie, this kid is surprisingly good too, the supporting cast including Gemma Chan and Allison Janney give an extra impulse to the story, Gemma Chan plays Maya, Joshua´s wife who has an importance in all this war and Allison Janney plays Colonel Howell a cold military leader who sees AI as nothing more than machines to be turned off, she is basically the embodiment of American military thinking in this world and she is terrifying in the best way possible
[Source](https://screenrant.com/)
[Source](https://screenrant.com/)
[Source](https://screenrant.com/)
[Source](https://screenrant.com/)
