'The Banker' cast and crew defend Apple TV+ film amid abuse allegations

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited December 2019
Apple's film 'the Banker' has been defended by its cast and crew as having a 'positive message of empowerment,' in response to a decision to delay the film's release following allegations of sexual abuse from the daughter of the film's subject.

Anthony Mackie and Samuel L. Jackson in
Anthony Mackie and Samuel L. Jackson in "The Banker."


The film was originally scheduled to debut in theaters on December 6, along with a premiere at AFI Fest in November that was pulled at the last minute. The cancelled premiere and delayed release plans were instigated following accusations by Cynthia Garrett, daughter of protagonist Bernard Garrett, claiming there was sexual abuse performed by film producer and her half-brother Bernard Garrett Jr. against her.

A statement signed by a number of key cast members and production crew received by Variety attempts to defend the film's creation, and to distance the work from the allegations.

"Though we have no way of knowing what may have transpired between Mr. Garrett's children in the 1970s, including the allegations of abuse we have recently been made aware of, our hearts go out to anyone who has suffered," the statement reads. It goes on to point out it was based on "recorded interviews with Bernard Garrett Sr himself, conducted in 1995, supported by congressional transcripts, court rulings, and other media articles from the era," and not from the recollections of Garrett Sr's children.

Referencing the "remarkable lives of Bernard Garrett Sr and Joe Morris, and their ground-breaking achievements combatting racial inequality in the 1950s and 60s," the statement ends by insisting "We stand by the film, and its positive message of empowerment."





The statement is signed by 54 people, including writers, heads of departments, ad producers. Heading up the list is George Nolfi, the director, writer, and a producer for the film, with key cast members Anthony Mackie, Samuel L. Jackson, Nicholas Hoult, Nia Long, and others also signing the article.

"The Banker" is based on the true story of two African American businessmen who trained a working class white man to become the figurehead of a successful empire in real estate and banking. Mackie plays Garrett Sr. in the film, with Jackson taking the role of Morris.

It is unclear what Apple's plans are for the film's release following the delayed theatrical debut and premiere failure. While it was slated to be made available on Apple TV+ sometime in 2020, it is unknown when exactly that will be, nor how much of an impact the allegations made to delay its streaming availability.

The statement in full reads:
We set out to tell a story we were very passionate about, recounting the remarkable lives of Bernard Garrett Sr and Joe Morris, and their ground-breaking achievements combating racial inequality in the 1950s and 60s. Though we have no way of knowing what may have transpired between Mr. Garrett's children in the 1970s, including the allegations of abuse we have recently been made aware of, our hearts go out to anyone who has suffered. The film itself is not based on the recollections of any of Bernard Garrett Sr's children, but rather, on recorded interviews with Bernard Garrett Sr himself, conducted in 1995, supported by congressional transcripts, court rulings, and other media articles from the era. We stand by the film, and its positive message of empowerment.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    I'm wondering how it feels to be hoist on one's own petard...

    Personally, I think if the movie is well written, the message oughta be "Yeah, the guy did bad stuff, but he also did a bunch of good stuff, and that's what we're concentrating on here.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that."

    But that seems to be a foreign concept these days.
    greg uvanwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 20
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    I'm wondering how it feels to be hoist on one's own petard...

    Personally, I think if the movie is well written, the message oughta be "Yeah, the guy did bad stuff, but he also did a bunch of good stuff, and that's what we're concentrating on here.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that."

    But that seems to be a foreign concept these days.
    Part of the plan. Hold everyone to impossible standards until it all comes crashing down and then we beg for someone to come in and clean up the mess. That person will of course be infallible and will have all of the answers.

    Gosh I wish there was more emphasis on early to mid 20th century history in school...
    edited December 2019 montrosemacswatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 20
    Personally, I think if the movie is well written, the message oughta be "Yeah, the guy did bad stuff, but he also did a bunch of good stuff, and that's what we're concentrating on here.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that."
    The issue doesn't involve the subject of the film. It involves his son, who is one of the producers.

    razorpit said: Part of the plan. Hold everyone to impossible standards until it all comes crashing down and then we beg for someone to come in and clean up the mess. That person will of course be infallible and will have all of the answers.
    The accusation involves molestation of family members. Do you consider not molesting family members to be an impossible standard to be held to? 



    montrosemacsronnlolliverPezazoetmbjony0
  • Reply 4 of 20
    We would all do well to remember the adage, you should never meet your hero. For example, Gandhi probably beat his wife, do we think that's a great idea? No. But he's still Gandhi, and his resolve and his accomplishments are still admirable. 

    People are complicated messes. They are admixtures of admirable and shameful characteristics, especially if you bring their entire life under scrutiny. We need to be able to detach the admirable character from the flawed human underneath, and that's what a good story does.

    Ultimately, the story isn't about the man and his failings, it's about a character who did something amazing.
    randominternetpersonwatto_cobrahmurchison
  • Reply 5 of 20
    The issue of abuse is between Cynthia Garrett and her half-brother Bernard Garrett Jr. who also was a film producer on the project. That is where the issue should remain. Others may be empathetic and even sympathetic but cannot be allowed to be culpable and cannot have their efforts and talents voided. Attention and effort must be directed at the two specifics and to do otherwise is to spread the abuse too broadly and too unfairly. The consequence must fall where it belongs. Unfortunately, an element of panic is engendered when accusations of abuse are made and societally we accept blame rather than addressing the specifics. This broad brush painting taints both the guilty and the innocent and simply intensifies the original abuse.
    watto_cobrabadmonk
  • Reply 6 of 20
    mknelsonmknelson Posts: 1,120member
    Personally, I think if the movie is well written, the message oughta be "Yeah, the guy did bad stuff, but he also did a bunch of good stuff, and that's what we're concentrating on here.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that."
    The issue doesn't involve the subject of the film. It involves his son, who is one of the producers.
    "in response to a decision to delay the film's release following allegations of sexual abuse from the daughter of the film's subject. "

    That subtitle could use a re-write. There is a near implication that it is the abuse was by the film's subject. I knew that wasn't the case from prior reporting.
    watto_cobralolliverPeza
  • Reply 7 of 20
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,783member
    The person who is accused is listed as a Producer. Pull his name off the film, pull him off of the PR and Promo appearances, and release the film.
    ronnhmurchisonbadmonk
  • Reply 8 of 20
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,123member
    I'm wondering how it feels to be hoist on one's own petard...

    Personally, I think if the movie is well written, the message oughta be "Yeah, the guy did bad stuff, but he also did a bunch of good stuff, and that's what we're concentrating on here.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that."

    But that seems to be a foreign concept these days.

    Incredible that some people still defend sex abusers with rationale such as "but they also did some good stuff"  

    Sexual assault is a heinous crime regardless of how much other good someone has done, and I'm sure if it was your daughter or son that had been abused you'd agree. 
    fastasleeplolliverPezazoetmb
  • Reply 9 of 20
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,783member
    People, for the last time, the person who has been accused is not anyone portrayed in the film. He is listed as a “Producer” meaning he owned the story and they gave him a title and a check. Simply erase him from the film’s supporting documentation, release the film, and move on. 
    fastasleepbadmonkgreg uvanjony0
  • Reply 10 of 20
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,123member

    AdBrit said:
    The issue of abuse is between Cynthia Garrett and her half-brother Bernard Garrett Jr. who also was a film producer on the project. That is where the issue should remain. 
    That's for Apple to decide since it owns the film. 
    watto_cobraronnlolliver
  • Reply 11 of 20
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    greg uvan said:
    We would all do well to remember the adage, you should never meet your hero. For example, Gandhi probably beat his wife, do we think that's a great idea? No. But he's still Gandhi, and his resolve and his accomplishments are still admirable. 

    People are complicated messes. They are admixtures of admirable and shameful characteristics, especially if you bring their entire life under scrutiny. We need to be able to detach the admirable character from the flawed human underneath, and that's what a good story does.

    Ultimately, the story isn't about the man and his failings, it's about a character who did something amazing.
    We would all do well to Read The Fucking Article. 
    watto_cobralolliverronnPezabadmonk
  • Reply 12 of 20
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Personally, I think if the movie is well written, the message oughta be "Yeah, the guy did bad stuff, but he also did a bunch of good stuff, and that's what we're concentrating on here.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that."
    The issue doesn't involve the subject of the film. It involves his son, who is one of the producers.

    razorpit said: Part of the plan. Hold everyone to impossible standards until it all comes crashing down and then we beg for someone to come in and clean up the mess. That person will of course be infallible and will have all of the answers.
    The accusation involves molestation of family members. Do you consider not molesting family members to be an impossible standard to be held to? 



    So he did it? I know there were accusations but I didn’t realize there was proof and he was convicted of the charges.

    Do you find it strange Apple still carries Guardians of the Galaxy movies with all that James Gunn has said of little boys? How about all those Roman Polanski films?
  • Reply 13 of 20
    razorpit said:
    Personally, I think if the movie is well written, the message oughta be "Yeah, the guy did bad stuff, but he also did a bunch of good stuff, and that's what we're concentrating on here.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that."
    The issue doesn't involve the subject of the film. It involves his son, who is one of the producers.

    razorpit said: Part of the plan. Hold everyone to impossible standards until it all comes crashing down and then we beg for someone to come in and clean up the mess. That person will of course be infallible and will have all of the answers.
    The accusation involves molestation of family members. Do you consider not molesting family members to be an impossible standard to be held to? 



    So he did it? I know there were accusations but I didn’t realize there was proof and he was convicted of the charges.
    Yeah, so much for presumed innocence. Why wasting time finding the truth when we can simply be outrage away. 
    greg uvan
  • Reply 14 of 20
    ronnronn Posts: 653member
    This project is probably forever tainted. Can it already and don't look back.

    Apple failed to properly vet the producers, especially the accused as Cynthia Garrett's allegations against Bernard Garrett, Jr. were detailed in her 2016 book. She claims attempts to contact the production company and producers (including Samuel L. Jackson) before the movie was made. And looking at the actual players in the real-life story, the script goes out of it's way to erase Cynthia and her mom; not surprising as she claims that once they told others about BGJ's assaults, Bernard Garrett, Sr. sided with his son. Sr. supposedly didn't attend Cynthia's wedding because she understandingly wouldn't permit Jr. to attend.
  • Reply 15 of 20
    Perhaps the next Apple+/Oprah production can be a documentary about this documentary being derailed by a generation-old #MeToo allegation.  No one will watch it, but the critics will be impressed if done the right way.
    hmurchison
  • Reply 16 of 20
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    matrix077 said:
    razorpit said:
    Personally, I think if the movie is well written, the message oughta be "Yeah, the guy did bad stuff, but he also did a bunch of good stuff, and that's what we're concentrating on here.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that."
    The issue doesn't involve the subject of the film. It involves his son, who is one of the producers.

    razorpit said: Part of the plan. Hold everyone to impossible standards until it all comes crashing down and then we beg for someone to come in and clean up the mess. That person will of course be infallible and will have all of the answers.
    The accusation involves molestation of family members. Do you consider not molesting family members to be an impossible standard to be held to? 



    So he did it? I know there were accusations but I didn’t realize there was proof and he was convicted of the charges.
    Yeah, so much for presumed innocence. Why wasting time finding the truth when we can simply be outrage away. 
    We start going down this path what happens if someone doesn't want the new Star Wars movie to come out. Can that person stop it by saying "JJ Abrams touched me"? I don't understand where we draw the line between accusations and convictions.

    Our legal system is founded on proven guilt for a reason. We start going down this path of proving your innocence, and it won't be long before we're in early 20th century Russia or Germany.
  • Reply 17 of 20
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Ahhh it become clear now why Apple moved swiftly to cancel The Banker 

    Had they not been focused on a "Get Woke, Go Broke" Oprah expose on the Music Industry's version of a Casting Couch 
    they could have let The Banker ride and let the courts settle it.   

    But now we have an optics issue.   If Apple lets the The Banker ride and then pushes out a sexual assault documentary with Oprah 
    the blowback is going to be extra severe. 

    When Apple announced they were going to have original content I was excited.   When they said they wouldn't focus on really edgy stuff 
    I was disappointed by I understood.  When Oprah was onboard I was like "she hasn't had a winner in years but ok...let's see what she gots" 

    I did NOT expect some documentary on Sexual Assault especially after Apple's retreat for edgy content.    So we're not even three months in to 
    Apple TV+ and Apple has already stepped in shat.   This is a critical mistake in a new service given the options we have for streaming. 


  • Reply 18 of 20
    razorpit said:
    Personally, I think if the movie is well written, the message oughta be "Yeah, the guy did bad stuff, but he also did a bunch of good stuff, and that's what we're concentrating on here.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that."
    The issue doesn't involve the subject of the film. It involves his son, who is one of the producers.

    razorpit said: Part of the plan. Hold everyone to impossible standards until it all comes crashing down and then we beg for someone to come in and clean up the mess. That person will of course be infallible and will have all of the answers.
    The accusation involves molestation of family members. Do you consider not molesting family members to be an impossible standard to be held to? 



    So he did it? I know there were accusations but I didn’t realize there was proof and he was convicted of the charges.

    Do you find it strange Apple still carries Guardians of the Galaxy movies with all that James Gunn has said of little boys? How about all those Roman Polanski films?
    Pretty weird to put inappropriate jokes and convicted statutory rape in the same class of offenses. 
  • Reply 19 of 20
    greg uvan said:
    We would all do well to remember the adage, you should never meet your hero. For example, Gandhi probably beat his wife, do we think that's a great idea? No. But he's still Gandhi, and his resolve and his accomplishments are still admirable. 

    People are complicated messes. They are admixtures of admirable and shameful characteristics, especially if you bring their entire life under scrutiny. We need to be able to detach the admirable character from the flawed human underneath, and that's what a good story does.

    Ultimately, the story isn't about the man and his failings, it's about a character who did something amazing.
    We would all do well to Read The Fucking Article. 
    Hm. I thought it read it. I just reread it, and I'm still kinda confused. When did the alleged sexual abuse take place, the 1970s or during the production of the film itself? 
  • Reply 20 of 20
    Okay, from the comments of others I think I get it now. The allegations are indeed from long ago, but they're not even allegations about the characters who the show is about, but they're allegations about the son of one of the main characters, and HE in the present was a producer of the show, which is about the life of his dad. Is that right? 

    No offense or whatever, but, why is this a story? If the guy did it, and that's proven, and is within the statute of limitations, he should be punished according to the law. Now that I realize the allegations aren't even about the people that the story is about... why on earth would Apple can the show? I got confused over the names. I thought the controversy was that, here they went and made a show about the accomplishments of a guy and it turns out he was also sexually abusing someone 45 years ago. I thought, well that's bad, but, when we admire a hero, we're not really admiring a person, but a sort of propped up fiction about a person. We're admiring a certain archetype of a hero. 

    Now I realize the allegations are regarding a producer of the show? That shouldn't taint the show.
    edited December 2019
Sign In or Register to comment.