Predictably inaccurate, ‘The Butler’ still entertains with drama
Predictable is probably the best word for it. But that’s not to say it’s boring.
“The Butler” is nothing if not emotionally charged entertainment, as it’s certainly not historically accurate.
The movie follows White House butler Cecil Gaines through his experiences under eight presidents.
The opening credits read, “Inspired by true events,” but perhaps it should read, “Loosely based on a distorted understanding of one man’s experiences.”
The film’s predictability comes in the form of well-known historical events paired with as many almost-believable misfortunes that could befall one individual.
It’s as though the most cliché, yet still horrific events and occurrences of segregation and the Civil Rights movement were shoved into one painful, emotional ride of a film.
I walked away feeling as though I had just realized I missed many chapters in my history classes. But a quick Google search remedied the feeling, because as it turns out, the film is quite factually inaccurate.
“The Butler” is based on a Washington Post article from 2008 titled “A Butler Well Served by This Election.” A quick reading of the original article confirms the worst suspicions; much of the most emotional happenings in the film aren’t accurate.
The occurrences that elicit the most empathy for “The Butler’s” main character, Cecil Gaines, especially during the opening five minutes, didn’t even happen to him. In fact, Cecil Gaines, a likeable character, isn’t even the real man’s name.
The real butler’s name was Eugene Allen. He did, in fact, serve during eight consecutive White House administrations, and he appears to be just as likeable a character as his silver screen counterpart. Unfortunately, the majority of the rest of the film was invented for entertainment purposes.
Like the majority of movies “based on a true story,” embellishment is needed to fill in the gaps. However, some films fill in more gaps than others. This is one of those films.
Don’t let me discourage you from seeing it though. It is thought provoking, to say the least. Many of the most significant moments of the Civil Rights movement are touched on in the film, and those did happen. But even some of the perceptions surrounding those events are somewhat distorted.
Enjoy the film, but take it with a grain of salt. And maybe, for personal reassurances, do a few quick Google searches.
Anonymous • Feb 4, 2023 at 7:05 pm
Thank U Elle for an accurate review of an inaccurate review
Elle • Jan 29, 2023 at 8:50 pm
I just watched this film and feel the emphasis in this review on the inaccuracies in the story is invalid as a basis for critiquing it. Since when does “based on a true story”mean an historically accurate telling of the story? How does this writer know what all the perceptions of the events of the civil rights movement were? I think the film stands on its own as a narrative film that tells a compelling story inspired by an article and, yes, if you want the actual history there are better sources but this isn’t a documentary.
BG Davis • Feb 21, 2023 at 8:41 pm
Just watched it (2/21/23) and agree with you in general. It’s a composite history. However there are details that I’m curious about. Did Reagan really give money to people who needed it? Seems unlikely, given his attitude about giveaways. Did Nancy really invite the White House bulter and his wife to a state dinner? Seems even more unlikely, but you never know. I wish the review had gotten specific, instead of just panning the movie for general fictitiousness.
Quintan Martin • Mar 21, 2022 at 9:06 am
Thanks!
Anonymous • Mar 23, 2021 at 8:51 am
slatt