Their Eyes Were Watching God (2005) Reviews

• read the book!

  danyella822005-03-08

  There are at least a few good things about the made for television version of Ms. Hurston's classic, Their Eyes Were Watching God. The first being the cinematography, as it is often moody, always rich, and at points ethereal: the water could not be bluer, nor could the people be more vibrantly brown. Also, it is worth noting the clever choices Mr. Martin made when deciding what to film. For instance, in the scene when Janie lies in bed with her first husband and ponders what he would do if she were to ever leave him, the director gives us a rather telling portrait of their relationship with just a few shots. He begins making the inner thigh of Logan Killicks' the center of the frame, thus allowing us to see the old man's flabby skin as it nearly falls from its bone. It is a sensitive portrait; for Killicks is no longer repulsive to the viewer- he is simply ashen, old, and, most importantly, an inappropriate suitor for the supple Janie. Unfortunately, with the exception of a fine performance by Nicki Michauex and the delight of seeing Ruby Dee working, I find little else commendable about this theatrical mishap. To begin, it seems everyone involved with this production, from the screenwriters, producers, director, and the dialect coach- if one existed at all, did everything in their power to strip TEWWG of its blackness. And by the erasure of "blackness" I am referring to the production's lack of humor and word play, the lack of southern accents and sense of community, that there is no juke joint, hard work, eroticism, and constant reminders of racism so key to Hurston's understanding of the rural Black experience. (What so many Brooklyn accents were doing in Eatonville Florida is beyond me! Moreover, why Halle Berry was not encouraged to do something with her voice, other than what she did in Finding Isaiah is equally distressing.) Those who have read and care deeply about the book will also find disappointing the screenwriters' insistence on whittling down such an obvious celebration and examination of black rural life into a love story, as the camera simply refuses to venture beyond Teacake and Janie's bedroom. Most regrettably, is the omission of life on the muck, where Janie and her man worked as migrant workers along with persons with colorful names like Bootyny, Sop-de-Bottom, and Stew Beef. For life on the muck, according to Ms. Hurston provides a complex view of Black life. It was in those pages, after all, us readers watched the workers dance at the juke, play the dozens, and deal with their respective experiences of being black, transient, impoverished, and yet, amazingly resilient. This they did with imagination, wit, ingenuity, and violence. On a sadder note it was on the muck that Teacake beat Janie as other men so proudly beat their women, thereby showing us what Nanny really meant when she confirmed "de n***er woman" to be "de mule uh de world so fur as Ah can see." Also, it was via the beating that us readers understood the union of Janie and Teacake to be problematic, if not doomed and not just an excuse for the cheesy face licking of Ms. Berry and Mr. Ealy. Sadly, these factors will all be lost on those who forwent the novel and settled for the television spectacle. One can only hope that Ms. Winfrey and company's pedestrian effort will encourage others to examine or reexamine Ms. Zora Neale Hurston's masterpiece.

  More

• Screeplay missed some important key features of the book...

  cfjwp2005-03-19

  If one has not read the book _Their Eyes Were Watching God_, then the movie was probably wonderful. Unfortunately, for those who have read the book, it is obvious that the screenplay writer missed some important aspects of the book-- or for some reason chose to omit them. The plot in the movie revolves around Janie and her love affairs, however, what is most important to Janie, in the book, is feeling loved and accepted not only by a man, but her community. Janie is a "light-skinned" African American and is treated different because of it. The book addresses a caste system that was prominent at the time that Hurston wrote the book. This important aspect of the story was not addressed in the movie. This is just one of many "aspects" that was not addressed. On the up side, the casting is superb. Halle Berry is perfect for the part of Janie. She is beautiful and strong while being sensitive and vulnerable. Michael Ealy is a wonderful Tea Cake. What chemistry! All in all the movie is-- OK. Hopefully, it will entice the viewers to read Zora Neale Hurston's fabulous book.

  More

• Taking the extraordinary and making it ordinary!

  michelle332005-03-07

  If this movie is your first introduction to Zora Neale Hurston's Masterpiece called Their Eyes Were Watching God, then you owe it to yourself to read the book. In fact, it's the only way you'll truly be transported to the another time and place. The television movie didn't even begin to capture the spirit of the book. This book wasn't about a great romance. It was about a woman's self discovery. First off, it's pretty obvious that more than two and a half hours were needed to adequately tell Janie's story. Because the filmmakers didn't take the time, viewers were left with a fast-paced, glossed over, cliff note version of Janie's life. I won't spoil anything if I say viewers were left with big gaping holes specifically what drove this central character. What about Janie's background made her make the choices she made? Most glaring, is it possible to span more than 20 years and not get even a wrinkle? Come on! How can a character look exactly the same at the end of a movie as she did at the beginning? especially after enduring such hardships. I'll admit my stomach turned flips when I found out this picture was being made. Our works of literature are precious and they should be treated as such. If you can't make it better, then leave it alone. Zora deserved better!

  More

• Whatever...

  qtipp4632005-11-20

  In class we watched their eyes were watching god, and i found that the movie and the book, although most of the time actually corresponded. It still did not meet my expectations of what i thought the movie should have been like. In the book, it was basically impossible to understand what was going on. Due to the slang words, and abbreviated text, it Forced me to go back and read a page over and over again until i finally got the point. And when i finally got the point i realized that there was a reason for the slang words and abbreviated text. To show the true meaning, and give an accurate description and idea of how things were during this time period. Harsh, separated by race, and a very southern setting. Unlike in the movie where the main character Halley Barry or Janie spoke in a weak southern voice almost sounding like a regular educated person, and did not seem to work half as hard as Janie did in the novel. It was good that the two (movie and novel) did correspond with some exact lines put into the movie which gave somewhat of a good picture of how the book put the story, but i would have rather seen a better effort on other things such as language and attitude rather than exact content from the book. Some may find the movie enjoyable, but me in particular did not find it to be to amusing. Just an average movie. But it did also send out a message that was meaningful as well don't get me wrong, and that is "The story teaches that material things are all right in their place, but if we exchange them for real living and true love, we lose out. Even though there is a tragic end, you find yourself still happy that Janie experienced the kind of love we all dream about." -breesummit.

  More

• Awful Movie

  docral2005-03-07

  I've read the book and seen the movie; the book is better. To do justice to the book, the movie should have been in two parts, the first could have focused on Janie's childhood and youth and her life with Joe Starks and the second could have focused on her life with Tea Cake. I knew I'd have problems with the movie when Oprah introduced the movie by talking about Janie kissing Tea Cake. No movie could include everything in the book, but by leaving out Janie's family history, we don't get a clear idea why Nanny forces Janie to marry Logan Killicks. In the novel, the people in Eatonville are complex and interesting people. In the movie, they are reduced to clichés. Don't any of the work? Sorry, but race is an important part of the book and there should have been a way to include this in the movie. Mrs. Turner and the trial are important parts of the novel; the movie was a Lifetime feature. Halle Berry doesn't have the acting chops to play Janie. She looked the same from beginning to end. Put a little dirt on her and she still looks good. The scenes in the Glades were awful. Unlike, the novel, there was no sense of the people working. The movie gives the impression that these people spend most of their time singing and dancing in camp. Talk about a cliché. In the novel Janie makes a choice to go work with Tea Cake; in the movie it was Halle going slumming. The end of the novel is grabs you; the movie's end was laughable. By the way, I don't think the novel is anti-male or anti-white. Oprah said that Zora Neale Hurston was going to let out a shout. Yes and the shout would be "Orpah you ruined my novel!" Orpah made a movie called "Their Eyes Were Watching Halle." I hope someday, someone will make a real movie of "Their Eyes Were Watching God."

  More