I think it's difficult for us to appreciate the weight on the shoulders of a person like Nina - a black woman in of that era couldn't have had it easy.

Even today, when I think of what people like Simone Biles or Naomi Osaka have thrust into the national conversation, consider these people are much more professionally and financially successful, in a time of more freedom of movement - yet, still, it ain't easy.

I'm not saying Nina just gets a pass, or that others weren't able to cope better but, that said, drug addiction ravaged marginalized communities back then much more than people realize (I could digress into a tangent on Billie Holiday and Frankie Lymon and Charlie Parker... but even just the mention should be sufficient to point in a direction worth exploring, but I'll warn you, it's heartbreaking).

And that's not to even begin to come to terms with the notion of health in general, mental health in particular, or or its evil intersection with the morbid dehumanization of Black people that the medical industry was (and, still to extent is).

I might suggest any assessment of her, to be fair, should appropriately weight the broader socio-economic milieu in which she yet carved out a career and managed to share her talent with us.

A caged bird will sing - we may celebrate the singing, but we should not unsee the cage.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

I think it's difficult for us to appreciate the weight on the shoulders of a person like Nina - a black woman in of that era couldn't have had it easy.

Even today, when I think of what people like Simone Biles or Naomi Osaka have thrust into the national conversation, consider these people are much more professionally and financially successful, in a time of more freedom of movement - yet, still, it ain't easy.

I'm not saying Nina just gets a pass, or that others weren't able to cope better but, that said, drug addiction ravaged marginalized communities back then much more than people realize (I could digress into a tangent on Billie Holiday and Frankie Lymon and Charlie Parker... but even just the mention should be sufficient to point in a direction worth exploring, but I'll warn you, it's heartbreaking).

And that's not to even begin to come to terms with the notion of health in general, mental health in particular, or or its evil intersection with the morbid dehumanization of Black people that the medical industry was (and, still to extent is).

I might suggest any assessment of her, to be fair, should appropriately weight the broader socio-economic milieu in which she yet carved out a career and managed to share her talent with us.

A caged bird will sing - we may celebrate the singing, but we should not unsee the cage.

Very true, and I think that's the inherent failure of almost every 'tortured artist' biopic. They fail to turn the microscope on the situation, instead opting to focus on the more sensational aspect of the victim's reactions. For example in this film, I noticed only 1 direct depiction of racism (in the very beginning when Nina's parents weren't allowed to sit in the 'white seats' at Nina's piano recital). The rest of the film steers clear of showing racism in a social context, but shows plenty of Nina's rants about racism.

A psychologist would have to chime in on this, but I think this gives the audience a chance to wash their hands of society's ills because our attention is diverted toward the victim's reaction. When the victim spirals into addiction and paranoid behavior that adds a fresh rinse because now we're totally removed from the subject of racism. Now the subject is mental health. We've forgotten that opening scene of racism altogether.

I think this is because Hollywood knows a hard hitting film about racism just aint gonna fly. So they give us just enough to cover the general subject, but they move on quickly. I noticed the same strategy in the Billie Holiday biopic Lady Sings the Blues (which, again, focuses on her issues of addiction). That's the crowd pleasing way to go.

@NeoLosman said:

Wowzers. This film was a real mindfudge for me. Imagine if someone did a biopic on Mister Rogers that showed him in private: drunk, paranoid, assaulting & pulling guns on people, and general mayhem?

Part of what made that Tom Hanks biopic of Mr Rogers so vapid was it's omission of FR's service with The SEALs in Vietnam, where he took part in The Phoenix Program

I skipped the Hanks film because I expected as much. Basically an audience claptrap. I don't know the first thing about Rogers the man, I know his on-screen personality was a huge positive influence and I'm content to let that sit without knowing what he was like out of the public eye (unless he was a real monster, then I'd want to know). Everybody poops, we don't need to see it.

Maybe I should've taken the same 'I don't wanna know' approach to Nina Simone; all my life I loved her music and had a vague notion that she suffered and was abused. That much is clear in her singing voice. This movie shines the spotlight on the real person and does a decent job (I think), but it's pretty uncomplimentary.

My thoughts:

"This movie does not portray the real Nina, as she is a more complex person than the one-note character who appears here. The biographical documentary 'What Happened, Miss Simone? (2015)' does it much better."

"Neither is it a good biopic, but rather a pet project of Cynthia Mort, who was the director and screenwriter. The major part - mostly a jumble of truth and fiction - happens between 1995 and 1998, and could have been titled 'Nina & Clifton', as it focusses mainly on the relationship between Nina and Clifton, mixed with flashbacks, sweet singing, and the added drama: a shameless emphasis on her mood swings - manic episodes - depicted in scenes of sex, alcohol and violence."

@wonder2wonder said:

My thoughts:

"This movie does not portray the real Nina, as she is a more complex person than the one-note character who appears here. The biographical documentary 'What Happened, Miss Simone? (2015)' does it much better."

"Neither is it a good biopic, but rather a pet project of Cynthia Mort, who was the director and screenwriter. The major part - mostly a jumble of truth and fiction - happens between 1995 and 1998, and could have been titled 'Nina & Clifton', as it focusses mainly on the relationship between Nina and Clifton, mixed with flashbacks, sweet singing, and the added drama: a shameless emphasis on her mood swings - manic episodes - depicted in scenes of sex, alcohol and violence."

Bingo. After giving this a week to digest, I think that's an accurate review. Yes the movie focuses almost exclusively on the late 90s, so we never get a real picture of what led her to that state. Like @DRDMovieMusings said "A caged bird will sing - we may celebrate the singing, but we should not unsee the cage" and that's exactly what this movie did: it unsaw the cage. From the first 5 mins to the end of the movie we're immersed in the world of someone who is inexplicably paranoid & self destructive.

This strategy may work in a film like Leaving Las Vegas, because even though we never get an explanation of why he's in a death spiral, it focuses on his human side. Also there's the big theme of his possible redemption through the Elizabeth Shue character. Maybe this film tried to copy that formula with the offbeat romance with Clifton. But like you said, the Nina depicted in this film is a one-note character, and Clifton? He isn't even a note, he's more like the scenery.

I don't think this film was awful, it had some effective moments and Zoe Saldaña's singing voice (if that's really her) is very nice, but the movie just missed a lotta targets. I might even try watching it again someday... only after I've seen that 2015 documentary!