IN DEFENCE OF AMISTAD

"A potently depicted slave uprising isn't enough for a guy who's capable of permanently dazzling us with the landing of a UFO mother ship." Paul Tatara, CNN interactive, 12/12/97 "Legal maneuver and political maneuver, the dank gloom of the prison into which the Africans are crammed, awaiting their fate, an astonishing evocation of the terrors of the slave ships' notorious Middle Passage--Spielberg permits himself time to explore every aspect of his saga in rich detail." Richard Schickel, Time Magazine

Critics in Australia (and some in the USA) have described Steven Spielberg's new film Amistad as "boring", "class room lecture", "too long" etc. One even said it wasn't emotional enough. Now, Usually when you look into the body of work of a person, you know weaknesses. This movie has its weakness. The only overtly valid one is the length of the film. I think it is around two and a half hours. This becomes a problem for people who can't sit in their seats that long without action, or who are not familiar with the period and implications of what is unfolding. However, this is where the paradox lies. In his effort to make a film that most of his audience will understand, and that historians will appreciate, Spielberg had to make the film this long. If I were advising him, I would have said cut the lower court room scenes and incorporate it into the Supreme Court part. However, that would betray the historical accuracy of the film.

This movie is very depressing, but it is also deeply moving, and can be uplifting. It tells the tale of an insurrection aboard a ship, "LA AMISTAD". The blacks are charged with murder, but the tale isn't as simple as that. The unfolding story has to be looked into perspective of the historical circumstances of the time. Americans were becoming more and more divided over the role of slavery, and a few years later, this would result in the confrontation that ended slavery, the civil war. Much of the action takes place in the court room.

However, the best acting performances come from the two heroes of the film, Cinque (Djimon Honsou) and John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins). That Honsou was not nominated by the academy is an insult to him and to african americans. It was the best dramatic performance of last year. The part where he says "I want free", would make me laugh in any other film, but he pulls of such a potentially corny moment with an amazing emotion. Anthony Hopkins is masterful. This man is amazing. He can do Nixon, and Hannibal (many say it could be the same role), and now Adams. It's an excellent performance, and rivals if not betters Burt Reynold's fatherly portrayal in Boogie Nights.

But best mention should go to both Spielberg and the cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski. Spielberg amazes me with astonishing visuals. I think critics have for too long dismissed his works as meaningless because they think it is "light weight." Whereas, if you look at the visual work going on, the deep meanings and messages conveyed are extraordinary. The opening scene contains one such visual metaphor: a brilliant camera shot of Cinque's face. It looks like a rock. An hour into the film and we discover that Cinque killed a lion with a rock, and President Adams says that Cinque is like a rock. This is played out so finely. Another is the religious undertones in the film. The bible is given to one of the africans. Cinque says to the african, "don't pretend to understand it", to which the african says, "I am beginning to understand it", from which the african, by looking at the pictures in the bible is able to draw an anology between their troubles and that of the jews/christians who are redeemed by the story of Jesus' resurrection. There are a lot of visual/narrative references to the Christian story and the resurrection*. The most remarkable visual comes just after the african explains the significance of the bible. When you watch that part, notice the ship that comes sailing past as the africans walk to the court room. The ship is calvery personified. Also, notice throughout how many times crosses, or cross like shapes are used in the film.

Spielberg for the first time ever in one of his film uses a flashback (however, it turns out that it doesn't betray strict continuity) in the middle of a film. And he makes extensive yet prodigious use of the low camera angle position. His usual god light (fog dispersed by light), and the themes of fear/security. One excellent example is the part where John Adams turns around in the supreme court (which represents security) during one of the last scenes of the film. As he turns, he is looking outside (bright light outside = uncertainty/fear). The music suddenly changes to a more dramatic key. It's as if that Adams can sense the oncoming civil war and mayhem that is about to happen on the outside. Other themes include isolation and loneliness, as well as the meaning of home. Not since E.T. have we had such a strong enunciation of that "meaning of home" theme (which is part of his jewishness - ie the promised land). Spielberg is perhaps guilty of letting the white Americans off the hook. The tormentors are the spanish, most of the americans are portrayed kindly, and Morgan Freeman gazes in awe at John Quincy Adams. But can't we say the same about Schindler's list. Oscar was a GERMAN!!!! The criticism that Spielberg can't make a black film because he is white is also a bit far fetched. A person who can understand human suffering and pain, can make a film, even if s/he wasn't personally affected.

Just to quickly round this off, the music was very moving. I particularly loved the African chants incorporated into the score music. John Williams deserves the academy nomination.

So, critics, shouldn't regurgitate what the consensus is. They should go watch a film, and report on it with an open mind, not confined by what the Washington Post, or whoever said about it. Of course, it has received some critical acclaim. Time called it one of the best films of the year, and it certainly is one of the top five (I put it at no 3). If any of you watch the Panel (Wednesday Night channel 10), it was interesting when they had their movie critic (who is DUMB), who just said exactly what other critics had been saying (class room, too long). Rob Sitch interrupted, saying that he thought the film was excellent. He noted, rather intelligently, the film's excellent visual style, and that he was a courtroom drama fan. It was a polite rebuff of the 'critic', but nonetheless, thank god for Sitch. I always thought he was intelligent!!!

The critics have also said that apart from Honsou and Hopkins, the cast is weak. Firstly, I find that Morgan Freeman was not underutilised. His role was appropriate. Even Matthew Mcwhatever his name is, was not as bad as most critics said. Sometimes I think they agree to say the same thing. Granted, Spielberg annoyingly does reaction shots too much in this film, however, this alone does not warrant the great criticism. As for the accusation it wasn't emotional enough. Firstly, it is. Secondly, it is not as emotional as Schindler's List, or the colour purple, but I recall criticism of the Colour Purple (and E.T.) saying it was manipulatively emotional.

btw. You will see some of the most disturbing scenes in this film, very reminiscent of Schindler's list, particularly in the flashback (which is masterfully told).

P.S. 1999 - After looking at this review, there's one thing I'd like to add. It might be a tenuous link, but I'll go for it anyway. When the character that looks at the bible explains "I don't need to understand the text, I can understand from the pictures" (or something like that) - I think it is a personal hint SPielberg is giving to his critics who dismiss his films as too simple. He's telling them - look at the images - they are more powerful than anything else up there, and they say a lot more than words. Of course, it falls on deaf ears to people who like to READ movies (and I suspect those critics may not be too well versed on real film style), and would reject outright that Cinque is portrayed as a rock (opening scene onwards) - as a Peter figure. Needless to say, it is a fact that Christian themes (which I might add, are not too different from Jewish ones) play an integral part in Spielberg's films (excluding the 'mindless' action ones please) even now.

* Though in light of Spielberg's jewish nature - it can also be lead as a promised landd story - of slavery and redemption to the promised land (the similarity between the old testament jewish story of Moses is quite remarkable). That it appeals to both Christianity and Judaism is demonstration of the similarities in the themes in the New Testament to those of the jewish stories.

RETURN TO REVIEWS

READ THE TIME MAGAZINE CRITIQUE

RETURN TO HOMEPAGE