I've been thinking about our American friends a bit. I was watching this peculiar little film on DVD called the CSA - The Confederate States of America, which was a mock documentary imagining what would have happened if the confederacy had won the civil war and slavery was still legal in the States today - it came across as an interesting imaginative exercise full of things like scientific investigations into a disease that makes slaves more ikely to run away and interspersed with adverts for products like "Darky toothpaste", "Niggerhair tobacco" and "Coon chicken". And then there was the scary part - the captions over the closing credits which revealed that research had really taken place, that they were real products marketted under those names, some as recently as the 1980s. Food for thought.
With the tragic events at Virginia Tech still in the news, the response of the gun lobby has really got me incensed. You see it seems that the real problem, wasn't the availability of guns to the killer, but the fact that Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone and therefore other students weren't armed in order to defend themselves. I'm afraid I just don't get this guns make you safer argument - it doesn't make sense to me. I remember having this conversation with a couple of otherwise reasonable American friends, who were adamant that owning guns made you safer. However, during the course of the conversation it emerged that they were the only people in the room who had ever had a loaded gun pointed at them - I'm not quite sure how this made them safer! Of course, those who like guns always fall back on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution which states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". All Americans, you see, have the right to bear arms, it says so in their constitution. Except, of course, it doesn't, because the bit they forgot to say, the full text of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". To me that reads that they only have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia, but what do I know, I'm just British.
Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts
Monday, 23 April 2007
Friday, 30 March 2007
Amazing Grace, Catch a Fire, 300
Amazing Grace – 4/5
OK, first thing to say is that I’m going to limit myself to talking about the film and not the wider issues and controversy surrounding the anniversary of abolition. Personally, I think a recognition that this didn’t end the misery for many Africans and that there is still so much slavery in the world today is not mutually exclusive to remembering the life of a remarkable man and a significant step on the path to freedom and justice. Those who wish more information on what they can do about the situation today might like to follow the anti-slavery or amnesty links at the side here, or check out the Breaking the chains, not rattling them posts on Rupert’s blog.
Back to the film. Films like Amazing Grace present something of a challenge to write about because it is difficult weigh up the merits of the film separately from the power of the subject they deal with. Wilberforce and Newton were remarkable men, their stories are both challenging and inspiring. It would actually be quite difficult to make a bad film from this material. That said, I was gripped, moved, challenged and maybe even a bit inspired by this film.
The film starts with Wilberforce a broken man – beaten down by failing health and failed efforts to get his abolition bill passed. The story up to that point is then told in flashback, before we follow him back into the fight and to ultimate success. Personally I was moved by the initial internal battle he faced between wanting to serve God (presumably in the clergy) or stay in parliament and try to change things and the growing revelation that the best way to serve God was the political route (which today may not seem too radical an idea, but maybe was more so at the time). Equally moving was the sight of this beaten down man getting back into the fight.
Ioan Gruffudd (Hornblower, The Fantastic Four), whilst not perfect by some way and maybe slightly short of somebody who was renowned as one if parliament’s best orators, gives his best performance to date and conveys the passion, earnestness and conviction of the man. The underated Romola Garai (I Capture the Castle, Inside I’m Dancing) again gives a solid performance as the romantic interest and inspiration for Wilberforce to resume his struggle. (All this despite one of the most amusingly unsubtle and disastrous attempts at match-making by mutual friends you’ll ever see).
The rest of the casting is almost note perfect. Michael Gambon and Ciaran Hinds great in underdeveloped roles as opposing politicians with vastly differing degrees of honour. (As a minor quibble, it would have been nice to see more of Gambon in particular, and especially more on why exactly he crossed the floor to join Wilberforce’s crusade). Rufus Sewell (last seen in the The Illusionist) clearly relishes the opportunity to play a part that is neither (a) very posh or (b) an evil bastard. Benedict Cumberbatch (apart from having the greatest name in cinema at the moment) confirms the promise he showed in Starter for 10 with another eye-catching performance as William Pitt. However the acting plaudits here all belong to Albert Finney’s excellent turn as John Newton, preacher and author of the titular hymn. His moving, human, portrayal of an old man still trying to deal with the ghosts of his former life as a slave trader provides the emotional heartbeat to the film, and his eventual ‘confession’ is the biggest tear-jerker here.
All in all this is a good film about a great man with interesting things to say about faith and justice and freedom, but also guilt and redemption and, dare I say it, grace. As such it stands as a fitting tribute to Wilberforce and comes highly recommended (at least by me).
Catch a Fire – 4/5
The latest film from director Phillip Noyce (Rabbit Proof Fence) tackles apartheid era South Africa. It tells the real life story of Patrick Chamusso – a good man (but no saint), wrongly arrested and tortured for an act of terrorism at the plant where he worked. His experiences set him on the path where he became an ANC fighter/terrorist in reality. As such the film touches on the age old issues of where the boundary between terrorist and freedom fighter lie and what action is justified by extraordinary circumstances, but offers no easy answers. There is a cost to the choices Patrick makes and no easy morality. The current context in which this film is released only heightens the relevance of these questions.
Derek Luke (Antwone Fisher) is a revelation as Patrick – a stunning, complex performance confirming that he is a young actor to keep an eye on. He conveys the complexity of a man struggling to do the right thing, torn between his family and his desire not to let them get away with what they did to him again. Opposite him we have police colonel Nic Vos (an amalgamation of several real life figures) played by Tim Robbins in what is possibly his finest performance since The Shawshank Redemption. This is no cardboard cut-out baddie figure and Robbins lends him some dignity – here is another family man, convinced he is doing the right thing to protect his country and his family. He has some kind of dignity and honour – he refuses to use a confession to convict a man he knows to be innocent. However, his brutal methods, including the torture of Patrick’s wife and at a later point forcing a child to watch the beating of his uncle in order to get information from him, prove self-defeating as he sets the unpoliticised Patrick on the road towards the ANC.
These two towering performances drive forward this intelligent and thought-provoking drama, whilst other characters are mere sketches. The torture scenes are thankfully not too graphic, but powerful enough to convey a sense of what was going on. Patrick’s radicalisation is dealt with swiftly, but believably. The frustration with the film, if there is one, is that clips of the real Chamusso over the closing credits make it clear that what we have here is only half the story, only half of Patrick’s journey. In real life he now runs a home for over 80 orphans and has embraced Mandela’s philosophy that, in order to be genuinely free, black South Africans need to forgive. Patrick’s years in prison and inner journey from convicted terrorist to that point of forgiveness would surely have made a film at least as interesting as the one we have hear.
Vos also remains a frustrating enigma at the end – one final glimpse of him, seemingly a broken man, without his family – leaves us with questions. How did he deal with the collapse of apartheid? Did he realise his role in making an activist out of Patrick? What happened to him in the end? Part of you would like some redemptive moment for him, which is a tribute to Robbins’ performance. However, as there was no one Vos in real life, maybe an answer to these questions would have struck a false note.
Overall, there may have been an ever better film in the material, but what we have is a good, intelligent thriller which recognises the complexity of these difficult issues. It might lack the raw emotional punch of Last King of Scotland or Blood Diamond, but is probably the more realistic and better for it. (And finally, a Western film about Africa with a black hero!)
300 - 3/5
It is undoubtedly true that the story of how 300 Spartan warriors held back the vastly superior numbers of the Persian empire at Thermopylae would make a great historical epic. 300 is not that film. For starters what we’re dealing with here belongs more in the realm of fantasy than history. Secondly, this is a deeply flawed film – the script is almost as clunky as the (at times) intrusive soundtrack. Gerard Butler (The Phantom of the Opera) shouts and spits his way through every line he has as Leonidas, King of Sparta. And the eventual demise of these heroic Spartans is a curiously unmoving affair on an emotional level.
Furthermore this is a film that wears its borrowings on its sleeves, most notably The Lord of the Rings, Gladiator and a final scene straight out of Braveheart. This film’s main, if not only, plus point is its visual spectacle. But boy, is it a strong plus point. The film looks great. As with Sin City, the movie has tried to capture the look of Frank Miller’s graphic novel. The bronzes and reds of the Spartans dominate the otherwise muted colour-scheme. The battle scenes are gory, yes, but possibly the most spectacular and well choreographed since Aragon drove back the hordes of Mordor (although the director does tend to overuse the slow motion moment). As such the fantastical nature of many of the Persian hordes adds to the drama rather than detracting from it.
If you’re offended by violence, steer well clear. Otherwise this film is shallow and hollow, but visually stunning and entertaining enough to keep your attention for its running time.
OK, first thing to say is that I’m going to limit myself to talking about the film and not the wider issues and controversy surrounding the anniversary of abolition. Personally, I think a recognition that this didn’t end the misery for many Africans and that there is still so much slavery in the world today is not mutually exclusive to remembering the life of a remarkable man and a significant step on the path to freedom and justice. Those who wish more information on what they can do about the situation today might like to follow the anti-slavery or amnesty links at the side here, or check out the Breaking the chains, not rattling them posts on Rupert’s blog.
Back to the film. Films like Amazing Grace present something of a challenge to write about because it is difficult weigh up the merits of the film separately from the power of the subject they deal with. Wilberforce and Newton were remarkable men, their stories are both challenging and inspiring. It would actually be quite difficult to make a bad film from this material. That said, I was gripped, moved, challenged and maybe even a bit inspired by this film.
The film starts with Wilberforce a broken man – beaten down by failing health and failed efforts to get his abolition bill passed. The story up to that point is then told in flashback, before we follow him back into the fight and to ultimate success. Personally I was moved by the initial internal battle he faced between wanting to serve God (presumably in the clergy) or stay in parliament and try to change things and the growing revelation that the best way to serve God was the political route (which today may not seem too radical an idea, but maybe was more so at the time). Equally moving was the sight of this beaten down man getting back into the fight.
Ioan Gruffudd (Hornblower, The Fantastic Four), whilst not perfect by some way and maybe slightly short of somebody who was renowned as one if parliament’s best orators, gives his best performance to date and conveys the passion, earnestness and conviction of the man. The underated Romola Garai (I Capture the Castle, Inside I’m Dancing) again gives a solid performance as the romantic interest and inspiration for Wilberforce to resume his struggle. (All this despite one of the most amusingly unsubtle and disastrous attempts at match-making by mutual friends you’ll ever see).
The rest of the casting is almost note perfect. Michael Gambon and Ciaran Hinds great in underdeveloped roles as opposing politicians with vastly differing degrees of honour. (As a minor quibble, it would have been nice to see more of Gambon in particular, and especially more on why exactly he crossed the floor to join Wilberforce’s crusade). Rufus Sewell (last seen in the The Illusionist) clearly relishes the opportunity to play a part that is neither (a) very posh or (b) an evil bastard. Benedict Cumberbatch (apart from having the greatest name in cinema at the moment) confirms the promise he showed in Starter for 10 with another eye-catching performance as William Pitt. However the acting plaudits here all belong to Albert Finney’s excellent turn as John Newton, preacher and author of the titular hymn. His moving, human, portrayal of an old man still trying to deal with the ghosts of his former life as a slave trader provides the emotional heartbeat to the film, and his eventual ‘confession’ is the biggest tear-jerker here.
All in all this is a good film about a great man with interesting things to say about faith and justice and freedom, but also guilt and redemption and, dare I say it, grace. As such it stands as a fitting tribute to Wilberforce and comes highly recommended (at least by me).
Catch a Fire – 4/5
The latest film from director Phillip Noyce (Rabbit Proof Fence) tackles apartheid era South Africa. It tells the real life story of Patrick Chamusso – a good man (but no saint), wrongly arrested and tortured for an act of terrorism at the plant where he worked. His experiences set him on the path where he became an ANC fighter/terrorist in reality. As such the film touches on the age old issues of where the boundary between terrorist and freedom fighter lie and what action is justified by extraordinary circumstances, but offers no easy answers. There is a cost to the choices Patrick makes and no easy morality. The current context in which this film is released only heightens the relevance of these questions.
Derek Luke (Antwone Fisher) is a revelation as Patrick – a stunning, complex performance confirming that he is a young actor to keep an eye on. He conveys the complexity of a man struggling to do the right thing, torn between his family and his desire not to let them get away with what they did to him again. Opposite him we have police colonel Nic Vos (an amalgamation of several real life figures) played by Tim Robbins in what is possibly his finest performance since The Shawshank Redemption. This is no cardboard cut-out baddie figure and Robbins lends him some dignity – here is another family man, convinced he is doing the right thing to protect his country and his family. He has some kind of dignity and honour – he refuses to use a confession to convict a man he knows to be innocent. However, his brutal methods, including the torture of Patrick’s wife and at a later point forcing a child to watch the beating of his uncle in order to get information from him, prove self-defeating as he sets the unpoliticised Patrick on the road towards the ANC.
These two towering performances drive forward this intelligent and thought-provoking drama, whilst other characters are mere sketches. The torture scenes are thankfully not too graphic, but powerful enough to convey a sense of what was going on. Patrick’s radicalisation is dealt with swiftly, but believably. The frustration with the film, if there is one, is that clips of the real Chamusso over the closing credits make it clear that what we have here is only half the story, only half of Patrick’s journey. In real life he now runs a home for over 80 orphans and has embraced Mandela’s philosophy that, in order to be genuinely free, black South Africans need to forgive. Patrick’s years in prison and inner journey from convicted terrorist to that point of forgiveness would surely have made a film at least as interesting as the one we have hear.
Vos also remains a frustrating enigma at the end – one final glimpse of him, seemingly a broken man, without his family – leaves us with questions. How did he deal with the collapse of apartheid? Did he realise his role in making an activist out of Patrick? What happened to him in the end? Part of you would like some redemptive moment for him, which is a tribute to Robbins’ performance. However, as there was no one Vos in real life, maybe an answer to these questions would have struck a false note.
Overall, there may have been an ever better film in the material, but what we have is a good, intelligent thriller which recognises the complexity of these difficult issues. It might lack the raw emotional punch of Last King of Scotland or Blood Diamond, but is probably the more realistic and better for it. (And finally, a Western film about Africa with a black hero!)
300 - 3/5
It is undoubtedly true that the story of how 300 Spartan warriors held back the vastly superior numbers of the Persian empire at Thermopylae would make a great historical epic. 300 is not that film. For starters what we’re dealing with here belongs more in the realm of fantasy than history. Secondly, this is a deeply flawed film – the script is almost as clunky as the (at times) intrusive soundtrack. Gerard Butler (The Phantom of the Opera) shouts and spits his way through every line he has as Leonidas, King of Sparta. And the eventual demise of these heroic Spartans is a curiously unmoving affair on an emotional level.
Furthermore this is a film that wears its borrowings on its sleeves, most notably The Lord of the Rings, Gladiator and a final scene straight out of Braveheart. This film’s main, if not only, plus point is its visual spectacle. But boy, is it a strong plus point. The film looks great. As with Sin City, the movie has tried to capture the look of Frank Miller’s graphic novel. The bronzes and reds of the Spartans dominate the otherwise muted colour-scheme. The battle scenes are gory, yes, but possibly the most spectacular and well choreographed since Aragon drove back the hordes of Mordor (although the director does tend to overuse the slow motion moment). As such the fantastical nature of many of the Persian hordes adds to the drama rather than detracting from it.
If you’re offended by violence, steer well clear. Otherwise this film is shallow and hollow, but visually stunning and entertaining enough to keep your attention for its running time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
