Sign up for the
TSL Newsletter
Stay up to date on the latest scripts & screenwriting articles.
By Sunny Choi · February 27, 2012
Despite its efforts to examine social issues, Tyler Perry’s Good Deeds falls flat largely because of its flimsy and predictable script. While the film tries to illuminate the plight of working class single mothers, the Cinderella romance plot ended up nullifying any sort of empowering message, especially for these women. At best, it indicates the huge social stratification that exists within the African American community and how that may contribute to distrust among these different social classes.
Wesley Deeds (Tyler Perry) has accomplished everything his parents expected of him. His father groomed him to be a successful businessman, and his mother (Phylicia Rashad) brought him up to be a gentleman. Needless to say, their efforts have paid off, but Wesley feels increasingly dissatisfied with his life. He runs his father’s software company and closely monitors his troublemaking brother, Walter (Brian White), who has a penchant for getting DUIs and into dysfunctional relationships. Meanwhile, the film becomes focalized through Lindsay Wakefield (Thandie Newton), a single mother who works as a janitor at Deeds’ company to make ends meet. Despite her best efforts, she struggles to pay her bills and ends up getting evicted. She and her daughter, Ariel (Jordenn Thompson) have no choice but to live in their minivan. After Lindsay’s unpleasant encounter with the Deeds brothers, all the worst things happen to her. Not only does she get evicted, but her daughter’s teacher calls Child Services on her, and she nearly experiences sexual assault in a homeless shelter. We feel awful for her character, and we want to see her rise above these awful conditions. The first part of the movie had my stomach churning, as I felt truly scared and sad for Lindsay and Ariel.
On the other hand, Wesley struggles to reject the life that everyone else has assigned him. After renouncing his hobbies and personal interests such as volunteering or riding motorcycles, he remains so deeply unhappy. He is definitely an archetype of the predictable, repressed man going through the motions of life. His fiancee, Natalie (Gabrielle Union), can predict where he is and what he is doing for each time interval. I especially liked the scene in which Natalie successfully predicts his every comment under her breath. Lindsay brings out his warmer and more spontaneous side, as she challenges and expands his limited worldview from his privileged upbringing. Very predictably, he feels increasingly drawn to her.
I do support the film’s choice to highlight serious social issues. So many children are living under the poverty line, and many of them are unfortunately homeless. Parents fear that despite their best efforts to take care of them, Child Protection Services can take them away if they perceive the child’s needs as not being met. Perry’s film illustrates and legitimizes this fear, as schools and social workers can intervene and separate children from parents. However, all of these concerns get swept under the rug after Wesley executes out his “good deed,” (You get the joke) as he “uplifts” Lindsay and Ariel from their downtrodden state. Then, the genre abruptly shifts to a standard romantic drama.
As a film, it’s not very successful. The script is very poorly written. The film starts with Wesley’s voiceover agonizing over being a “fifth generation Ivy League graduate, born in privilege.” Not only is it all very melodramatic and over-the-top, but it also falls into the trap of telling instead of showing. The dialogue, especially between Walter and Wesley, is very stilted, predictable, and repetitive. Walter resents Wesley for taking on the CEO position, even though he never wanted to so in the first place (We’ve seen this story-line too many times). Walter is such a ridiculous caricature that it’s very hard to take him seriously. He howls, screams, and is so ludicrously spiteful that many people in the theater laughed during even his “serious” scenes.
Imposing a Cinderella story on Lindsay’s subplot also gave off a problematic message, almost to suggest that working class women need not only love but also financial support from capable men in order to overcome obstacles in life. This seems like a slightly problematic and sexist message to impart to women. The ending, in which Lindsay leaves behind her entire life in order to follow Wesley to Africa so he can build wells and travel around the world, seemed to discredit Lindsay’s entire characterization as a self-sufficient and persevering woman. The film probably was not intended to be sexist at all because I believe it genuinely tries to uncover the numerous struggles that single mothers encounter. The fact still remains, however, that she never really overcomes these struggles without Wesley’s help. I felt that the film would have been more powerful if they stayed consistent with Lindsay’s initial character as a strong and independent woman.
This movie would be a good choice for loyal fans of Tyler Perry films and possibly women looking for a somber romantic drama. Otherwise, I think it’s a difficult film to swallow. It’s a very long and serious film with a bland conclusion, so I definitely would not take the kids.