The Best film of 2013: 12 Years a Slave

--a movie review by Michael L. Johnson

I squeezed in to see 12 Years a Slave at the Majestic Theater in Silver Spring at a 9:00 p.m. show last night. Literally, every seat was taken. I love that feeling, and the one that came before it, of waiting in a long line with the expectation of seeing a great film. I wasn't disappointed. (Incidentally, if you are planning to see this movie, which I highly recommend, I strongly suggest you either order your tickets online, or get to the movie house early to cop them. This film is a hit, and the chances of it being "sold out," if you wait to get tickets close to show-time, is great.)

Synopsis: Solomon Northup, was a free black man who was kidnapped in Washington, D.C. in 1841 and sold into slavery. He worked on plantations in the state of Louisiana for 12 years before his release. The film 12 Years a Slave s a fictionalized adaptation of his 1853 autobiography (by the same name), and it is, quite frankly, remarkable.

The Good: The movie was written by John Ridley, directed by Steve McQueen, and produced in part by Brad Pitt, who has a small but important role in the story. (Big respect to Pitt, who always seems to use his celebrity to aid the interest of doing good.) It stars Chiwetel Ejiofor (as Northup), Michael Fassbender (as Edwin Epps, a cruel plantation owner), Lupita Nyong'o (as Patsey, a slave on the Epps plantation) and many others, in a stellar cast. All of their performances are Oscar worthy. Nyong'o, a Kenyan actress and filmmaker, who makes her film debut in this picture, steals the show.

Arguably, Hollywood has only produced two cinematic works that come close to depicting the horrors of slavery. The first episode of Alex Haley's "Roots" was one, and now 12 Years a Slave is another. Nothing else comes close. This movie is so honest, and so believable on the subject of slavery, that it really hits home. As a black man, that was especially true for me. What both Ridley and McQueen have done is to bring a very real glimpse of the holocaust of slavery to the big screen.

I could not help but be haunted by my ancestors' suffering as I watched 12 Years... As a student of history, the feeling I got in the witness of this film was similar to the hurt that strikes me when I think of what Jewish people endured at the hands of the Nazis. The historic parallels between the two atrocities are significant, specifically when it comes to the casual practice of murder.

Facilitators of chattel slavery represent America's Nazi party, and the killing fields of plantations were my ancestors' gas chambers. That any human being could inflict an evil as evil as slavery upon another human being is a fact that astounds me. Another fact that staggers me is that it has taken almost 40 years (since Roots) for Hollywood to make a film that (halfway) accurately offers a window into the holocaust of slavery. (Then again, I am not surprised. I know where I live. They gave Quentin Tarantino an Oscar for his Amos and Andy/ Django Unchained script.)

Make no mistake about it. 12 Years a Slave is the best picture of 2013, and it should win an Oscar as such. It's acting performances are thunderously good, and should sweep on that front (particularly Lupita Nyong'o's work). However, whether that happens or not, it already has my vote. As an aside, I must show respect once again to Lee Daniels for The Butler. It is also a great film. However, 12 Years a Slave is better.

The most important question: Is it a good film? Yes. 12 Years a Slave is better than good. It is a historic achievement in movie-making, a film that honestly depicts the horrors of chattel slavery, written and directed by black people. That is a rare occurrence in Hollywood. The film carries the weight and power of a Schindler's List.  If you get a chance to see it, tears will likely fall, as mind did.

The Bad: This movie should be playing in wider release. At this writing, it is only playing at three theaters in the DMV. Shameful.

The Rating: On a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is the most high, 5 is my rating, all day long.

--MLJ

Director: Steve McQueen

Caught by Gravity: A Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

I rolled the pony to Georgetown this week to weigh the gravity of Gravity, Alfonso Cuarón’s latest offering. AMC Loews Georgetown 14 is a high end theater, to be sure. My only disappointment with the joint is that it’s hard to sneak food in. I've got to keep it real. These are furloughed times. While I like the neighborhood, and getting out of my own neighborhood to see the sights, their prices for “movie food” are high as hell. Anyway, I digress. The film, featuring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, has considerable visual weight. Cuarón is best known for his films A Little Princess (1995), Y Tu Mamá También (2001), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) and Children of Men (2006). Gravity represents an impressive addition to his directorial catalog.

What the Warner Bros. Pictures will tell you is this: “Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) is a brilliant medical engineer on her first shuttle mission, with veteran astronaut Matt Kowalsky (Clooney). But on a seemingly routine spacewalk, disaster strikes. The shuttle is destroyed, leaving Stone and Kowalsky completely alone - tethered to nothing but each other and spiraling out into the blackness. The deafening silence tells them they have lost any link to Earth...and any chance for rescue. As fear turns to panic, every gulp of air eats away at what little oxygen is left. But the only way home may be to go further out into the terrifying expanse of space.”

The Good: Admittedly, their movie synopsis is corny. However, the visual demonstration of Gravity’s plot is not. The one thing I can say about this movie is it will have you on the edge of your seat. It's that thrilling. To say that the cinematography and special effects in this film are breathtaking would be an understatement. I don't want to say too much about the actual movie narrative, but I will say that it's a monster movie without a monster. Disaster is the antagonist in Gravity, and arguably space itself becomes villainous.

Bullock, as the main character, bears the bulk of the acting weight in this movie (and that's a lot of weight with only two people in the movie). Her work is superb. George Clooney is also quite engaging, although the character he plays in this film, "Mr. Heroic Charm," is a character we have seen him play many times before. His performance is good, but not exactly a stretch.

As an aside, let me also add that it costs a little more but see this in 3D you're be glad you did. BTW, if you decide to go that route, you will find yourself jumping and reaching your hands out to block space debris that only exists in the realm of your glasses. I saw a couple of people do that, and then laugh about it. Not me, of course. I stayed cool the whole time. (Well, actually, some of those people did look a lot like this humble film critic, but that’s another story.)

The Bad: It’s formulaic. We know from the very beginning of the film that all will be well in the end. There isn't much of a script. The director relies on showing rather than telling. While I respect that big screen thinking, it doesn't hide that fact that there isn't a whole hell of a lot going on in the story. The movie should have been named, How in the hell do I get home? That ordinary title just about sums up the blandness of the script.

The Most Important Question: Is It a Good Film? Yes, and Alfonso Cuarón is a great director. This movie will likely grow into a Sci-fi classic. It should. However, its Special Effects and Soundtrack gave the best performances. Sadly, it wasn't the screenplay or the actors this time.

The Rating: On a scale from 1 to 5 where 5 is a rocket ship,

Gravity gets a 3.

--MLJ

The Butler: Serving Forest Whitaker on a Oscar roll.

Okay, as I said, it's been a while since the glow of the silver screen has found me in Majestic Theater movie seats. It's good to be back taking in a little bit of junk food and a lot of motion pictures in my favorite Silver Spring film palace (sorry, AFI Silver).

I finally caught up with "The Butler" yesterday, Lee Daniels' latest effort. To be honest, I have to say that one of the reasons it took me so long to check out this movie, was that I couldn't get through the long lines of hype surrounding it. What I mean by that is that usually when people say something is too good to be true, there's a catch. That was my feeling going into the theater. However, that was far from my feeling coming out of it. I have to say, I couldn't have been more wrong about the movie.

The Good and Bad: This biopic, based on the life of White House butler Cecil Gaines is impressive. For the two people out there who have not see the film, I highly recommend it. For the masses who have seen it, I suggest you check it out again, and bring a friend. Forest Whitaker, who plays the title character, gives a brilliant, Oscar worthy, performance. Oprah Winfrey's talent also shines. As a matter of fact, the entire cast is astonishingly good: Robin Williams, Alan Rickman, Terrence Howard, Cuba Gooding, Jr., Jane Fonda, Lenny Kravitz, David Oyelowo and many more.

"The Butler" is equal parts a story about the life of Cecil Gaines as it is a must see history lesson about the Civil Rights Movement in America. That lesson gives glimpses into the White House life of presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan (although Jimmy Carter is curiously absent). Whitaker plays Cecil with great dignity and loads of emotion. All of that emotion feels real. There are instances in the film where the violence of America's racism is put on display with little filtering. Those instances make the movie significant--and relatively speaking, unique--in American film-making.

That said, "The Butler" isn't perfect. As is the case with most Hollywood films, it still distorts black history, to some degree. This is especially true as it characterizes the Black Panthers as crude, crass, terrorists (which was not the case). I am still waiting for a film that tells their story with fairness. That point aside, I understand what Daniels was trying to celebrate the theme of non-violence in this film. I can't come down on him too heavily for that.

The most important question: Is it a good film? Absolutely. It's a great film that is destined to be a classic.

The Rating: On a scale from 1 to 5 where 5 is phenomenal, "The Butler" gets a 4.5.

mikej

Reddick: the Diesel Lives

I just saw the latest “Reddick” flick @ the Majestic in Silver Spring. I enjoy the series, so I'll be kind. It's been a while since I've been to the movies. What can I tell you? Life is real. It felt good to be back nestled in good popcorn seats. Looking forward to the next one.

The Good and Bad: Vin Diesel is always engaging on screen, even when story-lines are very thin. If you dig the "Riddick" saga, you'll enjoy this film. The special effects were good, and occasionally great. That said, not all of the acting was great. You could see some of the actors acting, trying to dig up naturalness and feeling in a relatively weak script. Sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they did not.

The most important question: Is it a good film? Nah, not really. But then again, it isn't an awful one either. If you can catch this movie in a matinee go for it. I've paid more to see less. There are moments when the film will startle you out of your seats. That's got to be worth something.

The Rating: On a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is great, “Reddick” gets a 3.

mikej

Django Unchained: The Good, The Bad, The So So, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

Jango Unchained Official Site

http://unchainedmovie.com/

A Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

Much has been heatedly discussed, particularly in black intellectual circles, about Django Unchained, Quentin Tarantino's latest film, in the week that it has been out. In fact, before the movie came out, Director Spike Lee said of the film that ““I can’t speak on it ‘cause I'm not gonna see it…All I’m going to say is that it’s disrespectful to my ancestors. That’s just me...I’m not speaking on behalf of anybody else” (Afro, par. 3).   Arguably, no other film released in 2012 has generated so much passionate debate about racism in Hollywood in general and the racism embedded one film in particular.  That dialog is a good thing.  Django Unchained is essentially an ex-slave/black cowboy/revenge flick.  It features Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Kerry Washington, Leonardo DiCaprio, as well as Samuel L. Jackson, and tracks the story of the protagonist (Django, played by Jamie Foxx) on a quest to rescue his wife (played by Kerry Washington) from a sadistic, narcissistic, slave owner (played with panache by Leonardo DiCaprio).  The Majestic Theater in Silver Spring filled my popcorn box this week and that was also a very good thing.

The Good:  To some extent, the horrors of slavery are depicted in the film.  And in the course of Django's quest, he kills a boat load of white racists, slavers, and night riders. Wonderful. The witness of a black hero killing off white domestic terrorists (even if they happened to be female) was welcome, entertaining and something rarely seen in Hollywood movies. The cinematography and overall homage-to-Westerns-feel of the film is also good.    

The acting in Django Unchained is, for the most part, outstanding, which is true of all of Quentin Tarantino's films.   Christoph Waltz, who many will remember as the sociopathic Nazi detective in Inglorious Bastards, gives a stunning performance as “Dr. King Schultz,” a German bounty hunter, and Django's mentor.   As I mentioned, Leonardo DiCaprio, cast as Mississippi slave owner “Calvin Candie,” plays his role with riveting screen presence. He is utterly cold-hearted and despicable. However, that said, Samuel L. Jackson, who plays “Stephen" (the king of Uncle Tom, house Negroes in the film), absolutely steals the show of most hated characters in Django Unchained. He is phenomenally charismatic in his role as Django's foil. Samuel L. Jackson makes us hate this character almost as much as the character hates himself. Whether you love or hate Tarantino's film, the fact that it features some of the best actors alive is irrefutable. 

What is also irrefutable is that the “N-word” is ever-present in Django Unchained.  Although it may surprise some folks to hear me say that its deployment in this film is a “good” thing, that is exactly what I am going to do. (Bear with me here, there is method to the madness of my argument.)  

The film is set in America during a time of slavery, and the use of the word “nigger is, to some extent, historically appropriate.  Although, to be honest, even in that context, I think Tarantino overuses the hateful term (perhaps for shock value). However, in spite of that fact, I believe it is good to be reminded (through the pain of Tarantino’s overuse of the word “nigger”) that no one should be spreading the word’s dehumanizing venom.  Ironically, Tarantino's film achieves that goal.

All too often, I have noticed that many black folks only get upset about the use of the word “nigger” when they hear white people say it. In fact, some black people have accused Tarantino of exercising “white privilege” by using the word in his films.  I wouldn’t disagree, but I would also add that to a significant degree many black people are hypocritical when it comes to our indignation about the N-word’s use.  In fact, millions of African Americans believe it is okay for black folks to use the word “nigger” just as long as we apply the term to ourselves.  If African Americans find the use of the word “nigger” in Django Unchained distracting, wonderful. We should be disturbed by it.  But I hope our anger at Tarantino’s overuse of the word “nigger” also translates into a rebuke we level at our own overuse of the word. If that does not happen, we will continue to exercise the sad “black privilege” of self-hatred.  I hope that all people who see Django Unchained are so bothered by the N-word that they will boycott from their tongues forever. 

The Bad: Slavery wasn't funny. It wasn’t a cartoon.  Night riders weren't funny. Violence isn’t funny.  Any film that engages the subject of slavery becomes too heavy to be made light.  Tarantino is a funny guy. However, there are sections of his film where he attempts to incorporate a Mel Brooks, Blazing Saddles-like, humor into a fairly intense revenge flick, and it doesn’t work.  Let Mel Brooks be Mel Brooks. He is much better at it.  Also the film is far from historically accurate.  The film features some Mandingo/MMA style slave fights (for the entertainment of the slaver owners) that have little basis in fact.  In a recent blog post on Next Movie, journalist Max Evry shared reflections on Django Unchained’s historical inaccuracies via the reflections of Dr. Edna Greene Medford, Professor and chair of the history department at Howard University. Medford’s writes, “My area of expertise is slavery, Civil War, and reconstruction and I have never encountered something like [Mandingo Fighting]…I've never seen any evidence of it” (Next Movie, Par. 5).

On the subject of acting, although both Kerry Washington and Jamie Foxx are deeply gifted actors, their work in Django Unchained is not stellar.  Foxx is competent in his role as the heroic black cowboy, but he isn’t great.  Kerry Washington is also a supremely talented actress; however, her voice in Django Unchained is supremely absent. Her character screams and cries and looks beautiful, but that’s about it.  I would have like to have heard more of her voice, or her story.  Black women, during slavery, and even now, have never been just ornamental in African American culture.  One more thing: Quentin Tarantino should not act in his own films. Acting is not his strength, to put it kindly.  It is frequently an exhibition of vanity when directors make cameos in the movies they make.  His brief appearance in the movie was excruciatingly bad.

Lastly, the idea that guns and violence equates to power and freedom is a dangerous one in America, and similarly, in Django Unchained.  While this is true of all great Westerns, like Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven and many other films, I cannot endorse this theme. In light of the recent school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, and the countless numbers of young black people who continue to be shot down in many of our cities, the timing of Quentin Tarantino's film release is troubling.  Furthermore, all of the days of the year to release a film with as much violence as there is in this movie, to release it on Christmas Day is incredibly distasteful. (As an aside, let me say that Django Unchained deserves every inch of its R rating for the graphic violence, vicious fight scenes, language, and nudity it contains.  Please do not allow children to see this movie.)      

The most important question: is it a good film?

Before I answer that question, I'll ask and answer some other, perhaps more pertinent, questions.  Is Django Unchained a black movie? No.  Does Django Unchained address the subject of slavery with the reverence it deserves? No. Would I expect to see a white filmmaker make a big budget Hollywood movie that addresses the subject of slavery with the reverence it deserves? Again, no. If African Americans want to see those kinds of movies made, will we have to make them ourselves?  Absolutely. It is in our hands.

Django Unchained is not a great film, but it is worth seeing (if for no other reason than to be able to decide for yourself its merit). On a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is best, yes, I'd rate it a 3.5.

--MLJ

Works Cited

Evry, Max. “'Django' Unexplained: Was Mandingo Fighting a Real Thing?” Nextmovie.com.

Next Movie, 26 Dec. 2012. Web. 30 Dec. 2012.

Prince, Zenitha.  “Spike Lee: “Django Unchained” Disrespectful to Black Heritage.” Afro.com.

Afro. 28 Dec. 2012.  Web.  30 Dec. 2012.

The Lone Ranger (aka Pirates of the Bulshit), a Movie Preview Review by Michael L. Johnson

The Lone Ranger (aka Pirates of the Bulshit),
a Movie Preview Review by Michael L. Johnson

Okay, although The Lone Ranger movie has not been released yet.  However, based on recent previews, I feel compelled to give it an early "Preview Review." And that, most notably, is WTF?  Such a remake is an incredibly stupid, racist idea.  Johnny Depp, who is about as Native American as Mitt Romney, plays Tonto?  Even if a Native American actor were cast as the sidekick in this film, my feeling is that this stink-bomb of a story should have remained flushed and buried.

The Good:  There has been no word yet about Hollywood planning to remake Amos and Andy (although I wouldn't rule it out).

The Bad:  The Ranger (white character) is still cast as the leader/master and Tonto (the Native American) as the loyal follower/slave.  Given the history of genocide against Native Americans (at the hands of white people) that frames the founding of this nation, this 2012  Uncle Tom tale is grossly insulting to Native American people (and to anybody else with a lick of sense and conscience).  Btw, tonto is Spanish for "stupid" or "fool."

The Most Important Question: Is it a Good Film?

Hell no. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is golden, this one gets panned as a "Hi, Ho, [Zero], Away."

--MLJ

Lincoln, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

Film Information

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/

Lincoln, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

Steven Spielberg's name on a movie project carries a certain gravitas and the expectation of high-level film-making. Spielberg is an amazing director. That's no secret. The buzz about his latest directorial effort, Lincoln, is also no secret. It has been going around for months. As a black film reviewer, this biographical movie of “the great emancipator,” has greatly interested me. I couldn't wait to see it. In the area of of master film-making, Spielberg didn't disappoint. Lincoln ranks among his best works. The film follows four months of the great President’s life during the Civil War, the worst war in our country's history. Lincoln is also very much about the dirty business of 19th century congressional politics, with regard to events leading up to the passage of the 13th Amendment (which outlawed slavery, on paper, in America). Lincoln is an Oscar worthy film, to be sure.

My journey to see the movie was a quest. I rolled up to the AMC Columbia 14 with my Raisinets money ready, but no luck. It was sold out there. However, thanks to the power of a Smartphone, and a championship desire to both see this picture and get my popcorn tubbing on, I finally found success. I was able to cop a ticket just down the street, at the UA Snowden Square Stadium 14 (which is actually a lot cheaper than AMC and strategically located not from from Boston Market,as I may have mentioned in an previous review). Anyway, cool. God bless my phone, fast cars and matinée prices.

The Damn Good: Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln, Sally Fields as Mary Todd Lincoln, Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens, and the almost extra terrestrial excellence of Spielberg in the role of director. Phenomenal performances. Gloria Reuben, best known for her role as “Jeanie Boulet” on the popular medical drama ER, is as outstanding, beautiful and charismatic as ever. What is also good is that Lincoln is less about “Saint Lincoln,” than the man, the husband, the father, the human being. He is not a vampire killer who walks on water with superhuman hand/eye coordination (unlike some other flicks I won't mention). He is only a man: a gangly, walking contradiction, although one of great brilliance, eloquence, and vision. Spielberg captures Lincoln's strength, juxtaposing it with his wry, disarming, humor as only Spielberg can. That was refreshing to see.

The portrait of Lincoln's family dynamics, particularly his relationship with his wife, Mary Todd “Molly” Lincoln is equally moving. The inequality of women is yet another theme that runs the course of the film. People (politicians) who often see themselves as great champions of equality are often blind the equality of others. This contradiction comes through very clearly in Lincoln. President Lincoln was not deeply and ethically attached to abolishment of slavery because slavery was wrong. However, as a result of his efforts to save the Union, the legal dismantling of slavery is permanently attached to him. That statue-sized historic contradiction greatly impacted Lincoln's life—and, sadly, got him killed. It is as real as the benefit of emancipation on black people in America. For the most part, Spielberg doesn't downplay either reality.

Certainly, the movie doesn’t sugar-coat the racism rampant in Congress, in the context of the debate about ending slavery. That was refreshing to see. Then as now, the process of getting bills passed in Congress that help poor folks in general, and people of color specially, is a dirty business of political battle. The historic “dirt” associated with the passage of the 13th Amendment isn't scrubbed from this biopic to make it more palatable for audiences. I dug that. Great art is as messy, disturbing and complicated as are great heroes. Lincoln highlights the slavery ending work of many flawed heroes and heroines. It accomplishes this as it makes the point that one person's vote, or ethical standard, can change history. In light of the historic re-election of America's first black president, this point is especially poignant.

One of my favourite scenes in the movie is when President Lincoln is talking with Union Troops (black and white) from a rail-road platform and the troops start to recite the Gettysburg Address. This freedom fighting affirmation is moving. It resonates with hope, much as Spielberg's film does, because it reminds us of the costs, power, and rewards resident in fighting for what is right in the world. Indeed, it serves as inspiration in the ongoing battle against racism and injustice in America.

The Bad: Steven Spielberg had to know that a ton of black folks would be giving his Lincoln biopic a very close look to see if he portrays him as he was or some Jesus-like slavery abolitionist. President Lincoln was a great politician, but an ambivalent emancipator, at best. In a letter he wrote to Horace Greely in 1862, he writes, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it...”1 Greely was an American newspaper editor, a founder of the Liberal Republican Party, a reformer, a politician, and an actual outspoken opponent of slavery. Although the Lincoln film does address his lack of deep conviction against the evil of slavery, the tone of Spielberg's portrayal of him, certainly suggests that he possessed such convictions, smouldering in his core (maybe under his top hat). He is lit in the film to look heavenly. And one character in the movie refers to him as “the purest man in America.” I'm not sure how anyone who is of two minds on the subject of slavery could be considered “pure.” That seems to me to be an irritation on the skin of history.

Another historical irritation with Lincoln has to do with Frederick Douglass' absence in the story. One of the most important friendships that developed during the Civil War was the one between President Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.2 Douglass (abolitionist, orator, scholar, and former slave) was a definitely on the scene and a frequent visitor to the Lincoln's White House. His absence in the movie is curious.

The Most Important Question: Was it a Good Movie?

It is a great film. In fact, on the Oscar tip, my prediction is this: Daniel Day-Lewis (best actor); Sally Fields (best actress), Tommy Lee Jones (best supporting actor); Steven Spielberg (best director); and of course, Lincoln (best film). If I were a betting man, I could win some money. Although, I would probably just settle for some extremely good popcorn. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is best and blessed, 4.8. Absolutely.

1 "Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, Friday, August 22, 1862" (Clipping from Aug. 23, 1862 New York Tribune).
http://condor.depaul.edu/tps/Abraham_Lincoln_an_Abolitionist_Abraham_Lincoln_Horace%20Greeley_1862.htm

2 "Mr. Lincoln's White House." http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=38&subjectID=2

-MLJ