I must first of all honestly say that my feelings regarding Steven Spielberg’s 1997 film Amistad are mixed. While I generally enjoy the work of Mr. Spielberg, this film is decidedly missing something for me. Could it be that the film takes some artistic licenses with the history it is supposed to be depicting? Well, nearly every film does this to a degree. Could it be that the very presence of Matthew McConaughey seriously bothers me, regardless of what the film is? Well, this is a possibility as I find him to be agonizingly irritating in this film as he over-acts (that’s what bad actors do when they’re actually trying) his way through the every single scene, to no emotional effect on the part of the viewer. Could it be that the script is incredibly uneven, spending too much time on some issues and not enough on other, more important, issues? I honestly cannot put my finger on as to why I feel incomplete when I’m finished watching this film, but perhaps it is a combination of all of the aforementioned factors. So why, you may ask, did I even assign such a film? Quite honestly because Mr. Spielberg has managed to capture some of the most realistic depictions of the journey through the Middle Passage that have ever been put on celluloid. The images are appropriately graphic in showcasing the gross inhumanity, the disgusting display of cruelty, and the damaging journey that was the Middle Passage. When we arrive at the point in the year when we discuss issues regarding the Atlantic brand of slave trade (keep in mind the actual institution of slavery is as old as civilization itself), it is these images that I would like you to keep in your mind, as painful as they are. The film does have a couple of other merits as well. While I loathe even the sight of Matthew McConaughey on-screen, I was thrilled with both Anthony Hopkins’ (as John Q. Adams) and Djimon Hounsou’s (as Cinque, a slave aboard la Amistad) performances. Hopkins, as he always does, brings realism to a legendary president, a president whose legacy is mixed, both for his presidency and his legislative career. Additionally, this was really the first film in which Hounsou introduced his acting talents to the world (he furthers his repertoire in films like Jim Sheridan’s In America). What is remarkable about Hounsou’s performance is that he manages to bring humanity to a character that would otherwise be typecast into a faceless African slave (as Hollywood has tragically always done), forcing the audience to empathize, not with a faceless slave, but with a man. Unfortunately, aside from the extreme realism in his depiction of the Middle Passage and two tour de force performances, Mr. Spielberg fails to offer, in my opinion, anything new in this, one of several in his long list of historical dramas. The subject matter is perfect for a stimulating and challenging discussion. However, because Mr. Spielberg yet again is afraid to dive into the ambiguities of history, the message is what his message always is—standing up for what is right in the face of adversity, and the ability of the human spirit to overcome even the most insurmountable of odds. I am not knocking these themes (they are noble and important), but they are old and tired themes that have been explored since the invention of film. If you feel there is more to this film, please feel fee to disagree with me and discuss your thoughts. If you liked Mr. Spielberg’s take on history, you may want to check out some of his other films that take on history, most notably the much better, much more challenging, yet still a bit over-praised Schindler’s List (for my money Roman Polanski’s The Pianist is a better film), his highly overrated Saving Private Ryan (I know that will anger some of you, but Terrence Malik’s The Thin Red Line is a much more challenging WWII film, and it gives the viewer much more to think about), or his very under-rated Munich (now that is challenging history for you). If you would like to see a more challenging film regarding the Atlantic slave trade system, I would recommend… hmm… I seriously have nothing as this is a subject that Hollywood (or any other film industry for that matter) has tragically failed in providing anything fresh, challenging, and thought-provoking. If you disagree and have something for me, I can’t wait to read about it in your discussion.
17 comments:
The thing that struck me about the film Amistad was how much I learned. I expected to learn a little about the middle passage, but instead I found out about the trial and the slave revolt and a number of other situations in American history. One thing that really annoyed me was the fact that Theodore Joanson (played by Morgan Freedman) did not exist and I didn't feel that he was all that important to the film in the first place. I completely agree with Mr. Prill about the tactics of hollywood "typecasting into a faceless slave", but Honsou's preformance had character, passion, and personality. It brings so much more to the film. As far as the reoccuring hollywood message "stand up for what is right", I think that mentioning this theme in this way takes away from the history. We don't realize how hard it was to do the right thing at this time in history. Even today people are so afriad to "swim upstream" and express different views.
To be honest I was dreading watching this movie. The description of it was bland and I didn't want to watch a movie that was one long court scene. but as I watched I was surprised at how well it drew me in. I wanted to know what was going to happen next, what the fate of cinque and the africans would be. I didn't like how spielberg changed the facts on Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skarsgård). In real life Tappan helped the Africans more than anyone and Spielberg made him look like a religous fanatic that didn't like Baldwin and didn't care much about the slaves themselves. Eventhough the africans weren't talking in english it was easy to know what they meant. I thought the portrayal of the africans was brilliant. Overall, i really did enjoy watching this movie. I learned a lot about slave trading and how cruel it was.
The Amistad , in my opinion, was a real eye-opener. Besides the fact that Baldwin (Matthew McConaughey)was kind of frantic and almost desperate, the scene in the Middle Passage was like a slap to the face. One could see that humiliation and the cruelty those people suffered.Like Mr. Prill, I think Spielberg made that scene so realistic. It was my first time seeing something that horrifying. Another thing that i saw in the film was that the court case was really accurate. I learned a lot from it. Most of the actors brought to their character a realness and the passion that jumped from the screen. The theme, i think, was too over used and kind of dragged the movie down. Why can't they think of a theme that could hit the core of the movie and make you think?
Amistad, not only was a mind-cathing film, but it helped me to elarn more than what I expected about the Middle Passage. The slave's revolt in the production, the intense moments during the trial, all took into effect of American history through time. Djimon Hounsou was an outstanding performer and expressed his charachter percisley. In conclusion, Amistad was an enjoyable film and showed me the true harships of slaves.
The "Amistad" was a very informative yet interesting film. One of the greatest parts of the movie was the beginning showing what happened on the ship and how the Africans were treated. The movie showed how an actual slave trade ship worked with all the Africans situated with only a tiny space. Steven Spielberg showed the present day population how it really was on those ships. Although the court scenes were very important, I think they could have gone straight to the point to keep the viewers interested. There were a lot of good points as well as a lot of irrelevant points. The best court scene i thought was when Anthony Hopkins did the supreme court trial. There was a lot of realistic and meaningful statements that he said which could practically leave an impact on anyone. I agree with the whole Matthew McConaughey part. I think they could have got someone better for the part because some of his emotions were pretty fake. This movie was kind of out of his element because he normally plays a cocky type of ladies man and does really well at it. He's not the serious type at all. All in all though it was a great story and made aware to the present important events that were not usually taught or well known. This trial effects how some people viewed slavery and ever since. slavery began to decrease from then on in the U.S. until it was finally abolished.
I had very high expectations for the movie as I love Steven Spielburg, and although they did not completely meet them, I was fairly pleased with the movie. The depiction of the Middle Passage was very intense and riveting. I found Matthew McConaughey's performance not really emotional and too modern for the time period. Djimon Honsou's performance on the other hand had passion, intensity, and true meaning.
I personally really liked this movie, whish is hard for me to say about alot ofhistory movies. It was interesting while surprisingly realistic. I mean you can't really expect out of ahistory movie. I loved the theme personally and would never get bored of it. Overall ita was a great movie.
This is from Jackie Carroll...
hey! ok so i dont really know how this works but here goes. i watched the movie amistad and it was a very well performed and written movie. i didnt like it though because it is very straight forward and in your face about what happened and i just personally dont really like watching movies like that. i would rather watch a funny or scary movie that isnt necissarily based on what cruilties actually happened. overall, however, it was a good movie.
The first time i watched this movie i was at a loss...not because of lack of explaination of the plot, but because of my sadly underdeveloped technological knowledge. You see, the first time i watched it, i had absolutely no idea wha was going on for the first thirty or so minutes because i hadn't turned on the subtiles for the african. oops. needless to say, i got much more out of the story once i knew the second point of view. Surprisingly, though, even without knowing what they were saying, the actors playing the africans managed to project on the audience their emotions and the message still came through intact.
I agree tha hollywood did take some liberties with the history a bit, but mainly it was surprisingly historically accurate, unlike other films like the King and I (sorry, only example i can come up with) and i can't even think of what else. It was really interesting to ead about the actual event after seeing the movie and noticing howmany small things added up... like the search forthe interpreter by saying the numbers from one to ten to african sailors. other comments are right though in expressing how the people were not portrayed very well (such as distorting Lewis Tappan's character, addin in Morgan Freeman's pointless one, and misrepresenting roger baldwin's) but as far as historical films go, this one did a really good job of staying (basically) in synch with the historical events while being interesting to watch...something someone might watch by choice rather than for an assigment.
I thought that the movie was very interesting. It did a great job of illustrating how real and cruel the slave ships were. I really enjoyed Djimon Hounsou's performance. His emotions in the movie were so intense. However I fell asleep during the movie several times. The courtroom scenes were almost too realistic. The only reason that i liked the movie was because of it's historical accuracy. Many times Hollywood loses some of the truth when making a historical film but as i researched the film for my paper i realized how flawless it was.
i'm not sure if flawless is the word i would use. there certainly were some liberties taken. for example, morgan freeman's character never even existed.
Although I agree will all of you about learning a lot about the middle passage, this movie did not interest me at all. I think it is because the beginning of the movie confused me. During the mutiny of the ship I couldn't tell what was going on because the screen was so dark. Another thing that really bothered me was when the actors would talk in a different language and there were no English subtitles. I felt like I was missing something important. When it began to show the Middle Passage scenes it grabbed my attention again. I could feel the pain of the slaves. I even began to cry. The court room scenes to me seemed to drag on. It would have grabbed my attention more if the got right down to the point. Overall I don't think it was a horrible movie. It could have used a few changes here and there.
When i got this movie, I was not looking forward to watching it. But as i started the movie I realized how interesting it was. Amistad really showed me a lot about the middle passage and how brutal it was. I had never really realized how terrible it was until I watched the movie. The character playing the leader of the Africans did a great job with his role and really kept me interested in the movie. Unfortunately i did not think Morgan Freedman played his role well at all. I would recommend this movie to anyone looking for a movie with some action that also has a lot of historical information in it too.
When I got Amistad, i didnt really want to watch it, even though I thought it would be an okay movie. When I eventually got around to watching it, I was surprised at how good the movie really was. It had a great storyline and it was mostly true. While being a good movie, i also thought it was also not a bad look at the history of the middle passage. While it wasnt completley true, it had a lot of good themes.
the movie it self was pretty good. it was a little slow and not as much acction as i like but it was a good movie. the facts of the movie weren't as accuret as expected. but overrall i think Steven Spielburg did a good job with it.
I was actually very surprised watching Amistad. I was expecting another boring movie that we were forced to watch for an assignment, bit I ended up really enjoying the movie. The Middle Passage scenes, although graphic, seemed pretty realistic (from my eyes, anyway), and I also enjoyed Hounsou's character. I thought he portrayed his character accurately, and also showed us an emotional side to slave trading.
Amistad surprised me in many ways. For one it captured my attention which is difficult for any movie that lacks any explosions, and it was also able to be a good movie. The cruelty depicted in the Middle Passage scenes left me angry and slighty confused on how humans could be so cruel to other humans. Although, some of the actors did not really seem suited for their roles they did preform pretty well. The movie even remained exciting in the the court house scenes especially former President John Quincy Adams' monolouge. I thought this movie would be boring, but lucky for me it wasn't.
Post a Comment