Family again asks Apple TV+ movie 'The Banker' not see release

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2020
Former wives of the man portrayed in the Apple TV+ film "The Banker" are calling for it to be pulled indefinitely, and are calling the movie a "manipulated narrative" that was "stolen and distorted."

Apple TV+ movie The Banker'
Apple TV+ movie The Banker'


The drama surrounding the Apple TV+ movie starts in November, after Bernard Garrett Jr., son of the man portrayed in the movie and co-producer, was accused of sexual abuse. These allegations were raised a day before the movie was set to premier at AFI Fest, which Apple immediately postponed release until further investigation could be made.

A decision was reached at the end of January that Apple was going to release the movie with Garrett Jr. removed from the credits and ensured he would not benefit from any profits generated by the movie. This decision was reached based on the fact that the entirety of the film takes place before the portrayed Garrett Sr. married or had children. The events surrounding the children and sexual misconduct took place outside of the narrative, and Apple executives feel that the movie tells a story of empowerment and bravery and should be released.

After this decision was made public, two former wives of Bernard Garrett Sr. again stepped forward to ask Apple to reconsider releasing the movie, as detailed by The Hollywood Reporter. Linda Garrett and Kathy Ussery Garrett are not depicted in the film nor involved in its production, and now claim the movie is inaccurate and should be shelved.

"The story was stolen and distorted," said Linda Garrett's attorney, "it has been hurtful to the family. They have manipulated the narrative."

'The Banker' follows Garrett Sr. And Joe Morris, portrayed by Anthony Mackie and Samuel L. Jackson, who lead a real estate business by hiring a white man to act as the "face" of the business. Apple purchased the rights to the film for $20 million and had no involvement in its production.

As a result of the further pressure from the former wives, Apple has added a disclaimer to the opening of the film, declaring it to be "based on true events" rather than an exact portrayal.

Anthony Mackie and Samuel L. Jackson in Apple TV+ The Banker
Anthony Mackie and Samuel L. Jackson in 'The Banker'


"Though we have no way of knowing what may have transpired between Mr. Garrett's children in the 1970's, including the allegations of abuse we have recently been made aware of, our hearts go out to any who has suffered," said the filmmakers in an official statement in December,"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. We stand by the film and its positive message of empowerment."

The statement was signed by 54 people, including writers, department heads, and producers.

Apple expanded on this message in their own statement.

"We created Apple TV+ as a home for stories that matter," Apple said, "[We] believe The Banker, inspired by the brave actions of Bernard Garrett Sr. and Joe Morris, two African-American businessmen who brought about positive social change, is one of those stories."

The Banker is set to premier on March 6 in theaters. A theatrical release will be followed by its Apple TV+ release on March 20th.

Apple TV+ is available for $4.99 a month and use it with family sharing. The app is available across Apple devices and a selection of smart TVs and set top boxes.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    It’s gotten to the point nowadays that people will routinely argue their own perspectives until they’re blue in the face, not having enough discernment to know whether it’s even true or not—a good argument is all that’s needed. We love ourselves so much that our feelings about things are better than truth.

    So it’s impossible to have confidence in who has the correct message about this.
    sandorentropyspscooter63urahara
  • Reply 2 of 29
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,182member
    This is a classic example of the Streisand Effect. I, and I suspect a lot of other people would not have even been aware of the film, or given a damn about it. But now I kinda want to go see what all the fuss is about.
    bb-15pscooter63ktappeCarnage
  • Reply 3 of 29
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    georgie01 said:
    It’s gotten to the point nowadays that people will routinely argue their own perspectives until they’re blue in the face, not having enough discernment to know whether it’s even true or not—a good argument is all that’s needed. We love ourselves so much that our feelings about things are better than truth.

    So it’s impossible to have confidence in who has the correct message about this.
    You probably could have gotten by with the second statement, only, and skipped the first.
    ronnuraharawilliamlondonRadio_Signal
  • Reply 4 of 29
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member

    DAalseth said:
    This is a classic example of the Streisand Effect. I, and I suspect a lot of other people would not have even been aware of the film, or given a damn about it. But now I kinda want to go see what all the fuss is about.
    I’m personally very cautious about seeing anything that claims to be historical and “based on true events”, unless it’s a straight documentary. After hearing about this one, I’m even more certain of that stance with this film. 
    ronnwilliamlondon
  • Reply 5 of 29
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    It’s none of the family’s business
  • Reply 6 of 29
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    dysamoria said:
    DAalseth said:
    This is a classic example of the Streisand Effect. I, and I suspect a lot of other people would not have even been aware of the film, or given a damn about it. But now I kinda want to go see what all the fuss is about.
    I’m personally very cautious about seeing anything that claims to be historical and “based on true events”, unless it’s a straight documentary. After hearing about this one, I’m even more certain of that stance with this film. 
    I'm looking forward to it. I don't need every aspect of a film to be factual. I'm not going to score each frame of the film looking for anachronisms and goofs. I'm going too to watch the film, and if it pulls me in I'll be researching the characters and events either as the film progresses or afterwards. Hidden Figures was a great film, but it wouldn't have worked if they kept the actual timelines and number of protagonists. None of that bothers me, just like I don't mind that the forests in Vancouver I used for countless science fiction shows where they're "off world" and yet they can breath oxygen and have earth's gravity. Sometimes you have to enjoy the ride.
    edited January 2020 bb-15uraharathe monkCarnage
  • Reply 7 of 29
    “Apple executives feel that the movie tells a story of empowerment and bravery and should be released.“

    Apple should concentrate on quality entertainment.  Not crap like this.          
    williamlondon
  • Reply 8 of 29
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,182member
    “Apple executives feel that the movie tells a story of empowerment and bravery and should be released.“

    Apple should concentrate on quality entertainment.  Not crap like this.          
    Quality is what you like.

    Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 9 of 29
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 992member

    Apple should concentrate on quality entertainment.  Not crap like this.          
    Oh... did you get a pre-screening?
    n2itivguybb-15ronnpscooter63StrangeDaysdanhmontrosemacsuraharawilliamlondonRadio_Signal
  • Reply 10 of 29
    dysamoria said:

    I’m personally very cautious about seeing anything that claims to be historical and “based on true events”, unless it’s a straight documentary. After hearing about this one, I’m even more certain of that stance with this film. 
    All movies are fiction, whether or not the source material is based on “true events” or how accurate it is. And that doesn’t bother me. It’s been said over and over again, movies like these are entertainment, not documentaries. 

    Still, if the movie’s portrayal bothers someone, they can go to Wikipedia or whatever after watching the film and see what was true and what was not. I do that all the time.

    And people’s memories of past events are always going to be different, especially if it’s the former wives versus recordings of the primary source on the film.
    williamlondonRadio_Signal
  • Reply 11 of 29
    So... we are now in a culture that puts a condemned label on those who simply SAY something out of line - well... depending on if they are socially favored at the moment. 

    But this movie wants to make a hero out of someone credibly accuses of heinous crimes? 

    How is this a story of bravery of the “brave” person is a monster?

    now, I believe that everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. So the best move is for Apple to store this until such time as proof is made and then either release or put to pasture. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 12 of 29
    ktappektappe Posts: 808member
    Now this has gotten ridiculous. I fully support #metoo and womens' and victims' rights. HOWEVER, as is clearly stated "the entirety of the film takes place before the portrayed Garrett Sr. married or had children". That means they have ZERO standing. This is not their story, not their business. 
    uraharahucom2000
  • Reply 13 of 29
    ktappektappe Posts: 808member
    “Apple executives feel that the movie tells a story of empowerment and bravery and should be released.“

    Apple should concentrate on quality entertainment.  Not crap like this.          

    Unless you've seen the film, and we can be quite certain you have not, you have zero standing to call it "crap" or anything else.
    StrangeDaysdanhuraharaRadio_SignalCarnagemknelson
  • Reply 14 of 29
    “Apple executives feel that the movie tells a story of empowerment and bravery and should be released.“

    Apple should concentrate on quality entertainment.  Not crap like this.          
    Who says it isn’t? I’m certain without even knowing you I could toss some of the things you enjoy into the “crap” bucket. That’s how subjective taste works. 
    uraharawilliamlondonRadio_SignalCarnage
  • Reply 15 of 29
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,182member
    So... we are now in a culture that puts a condemned label on those who simply SAY something out of line - well... depending on if they are socially favored at the moment. 

    But this movie wants to make a hero out of someone credibly accuses of heinous crimes? 

    How is this a story of bravery of the “brave” person is a monster?

    now, I believe that everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. So the best move is for Apple to store this until such time as proof is made and then either release or put to pasture. 
    Actually not even anyone in the movie. The SON of one of the characters has been accused of criminal abuse far after the events of this film. He wasn't even alive when the events portrayed in the film took place.
    That's how absurd this has gotten. 
    urahara
  • Reply 16 of 29
    “Apple executives feel that the movie tells a story of empowerment and bravery and should be released.“

    Apple should concentrate on quality entertainment.  Not crap like this.          
    Then if you ran the studio, Disney would  not exist, nor would Warner Bros,, MGM, Columbia Pictures, hundreds of thousands of docs.  Maybe don't confuse your opinion (quality) with the world's.
    Radio_Signal
  • Reply 17 of 29
    “Apple executives feel that the movie tells a story of empowerment and bravery and should be released.“

    Apple should concentrate on quality entertainment.  Not crap like this.          
    Wow. A crap crap comment....
    9secondkox2danhcrowleyuraharaRadio_SignalCarnage
  • Reply 18 of 29
    chasmchasm Posts: 2,522member
    I'm not unsympathetic to the former wives and/or children, but I'm struggling to see any valid point they are making -- absolutely none of the (vague) accusations they have made thus far have anything to do with the story told in the film. Unless they can present something that is solidly misrepresented or historically completely wrong in the film -- not just something negative they'd like to see included that wasn't because it has nothing to do with this aspect of his story -- it's just not relevant.

    If they feel this strongly about it, where have they been the last few decades -- and why haven't they made a documentary or fictionalized but based-on-true-events film/book/something about the darker side of the man that they allege?

    I think the message of this film is historical and important to illustrate part of what was going on at the time, and as far as I can tell the family haven't even attempted to dispute the core facts of the story presented in the film, so ... I feel that by pressing this point they are hurting their own credibility a bit. The initial accuser (Mr. Garrett Jr's half-sister) was not unaware that he was producing this film, but waited until it was fully made and ready to debut to make her charges, and the ex-wives now seem to be piling on (possibly in hopes of a payoff).

    I'm assuming at least some of their claims are true, but given that none of them or any events related to them are portrayed in the film, they may well be aiming at very much the wrong target -- and they are very unlikely to squeeze any money out of Apple or the film production company if that is their aim.
    Radio_Signal
  • Reply 19 of 29
    DAalseth said:

    So... we are now in a culture that puts a condemned label on those who simply SAY something out of line - well... depending on if they are socially favored at the moment. 

    But this movie wants to make a hero out of someone credibly accuses of heinous crimes? 

    How is this a story of bravery of the “brave” person is a monster?

    now, I believe that everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. So the best move is for Apple to store this until such time as proof is made and then either release or put to pasture. 
    -
    Actually not even anyone in the movie. The SON of one of the characters has been accused of criminal abuse far after the events of this film. He wasn't even alive when the events portrayed in the film took place.
    That's how absurd this has gotten. 

    -

    If that is correct, then I believe you are right. Forgive me if I misunderstood. It doesn’t appear easy to understand that from what I’ve read so far. 
    edited January 2020
  • Reply 20 of 29
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,084member
    Apple said "inspired by" which means nothing more than that.  I imagine that Star Trek was inspired by a lot of things too, and it doesn't matter if any of those things got "distorted" or even were stolen.  There's a fine line between inspiration and theft.  Since Apple is obviously paid for the creation of this flick, the upset wives and their money hunting attorney should be shown the door.  If that's not acceptable to them, then they should foot the bill for the entire creation of the film to ensure Apple incurs no losses.  Then it doesn't matter if Apple pulls it.  It really is that simple.
    DAalseth
Sign In or Register to comment.