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

Skyfall, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

 

Official Site

http://www.007.com/skyfall/

Skyfall, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

Skyfall may be a James Bond film, but it has the dark edge of a Batman movie. It is action saturated. 007 has one spellbinding adventure after another, and that’s exactly want you want to see in a Bond picture. I filled my popcorn box at the wonderfully glittery Regal Theater in Silver Spring, Maryland, this week. The film synopsis rolls like this: A master list of agents and their true identities are stolen from MI6. The release of this list would put these agents in great danger. Consequently, the recapture of this list becomes a top priority for the British government. Bond is called to track it down.

The Good: Daniel Craig in the role of James Bond was great, and a fresh, smart, approach to the reinvention of Bond by director, Sam Mendes was unexpectedly good. The villain in this 007 movie is not after the world (which has been done do death), but somebody's head. The target of the antagonist's wrath is the iconic character, Bond's boss, known simply as “M.” You see the closeness Bond has for M (played wonderfully well by Judi Dench), as he works his secret agent mojo to protect her. Usually, Bond films are all about Bond. This is a refreshing twist in the saga. Audiences also meet a young “Q” (the inventor of all of Bond's cool tools, portrayed by Ben Whishaw), in this film. That focus on the 007 team, once again, is a big cinematic payoff. There are many other surprises, as well. Most of them are unbelievable and unbelievably entertaining (which is, again, what we expect to see in any good 007 movie).

As is the case in all Bond films, the women are beautiful in Skyfall. This is good. And did I mention that the cars are cool?  The cars are very very cool in this movie.  That is also good.  The locations are beautiful. Some scenes will usher breath from your body, to be sure.

The Bad: I've seen a million movies with chase scenes running into fruit stands or fruit carts. To encounter them in Skyfall didn't fill me with joy.  The villain, played by Raoul Silva, is not particularly weighty, or scary and is a bit of a boiler plate character. He is not the late Heath Ledger, who captivated us as the Joker with his complications and charisma in the Dark Knight. He is certainly not as frightening as Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lecter.  Since the director went in the direction of a much more dark Bond film, this time around, I was hoping for a better bad guy.

The most important question: Is it a good movie?

This is a good film in a month when many other good films are opening, I am happy to say. 1-5, I would give it a 4.5. Even if you don’t like the old James Bond films, because he was in the sack with every women he met, and had some cute little saying for every situation, this is not one of those movies.  Skyfall falls fresh.

--MLJ

Flight, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

Official Site

http://www.paramount.com/flight/

Flight, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

I've been away from the movies for a couple of weeks, caught up in the best drama to captivate audiences in years: the 2012 Presidential Election.  Make no mistake about it, that competition between President Obama and Governor Romney was a 5 on a scale where 5 is blessed and best.  Now that it's over, it's popcorn time in the big city. Just yesterday, I flew in to see Flight, the new Robert Zemickus movie featuring Denzel Washington, and was not disappointed by the journey. The plot is as follows: "A seasoned airline pilot (a character named "Whip," played by Washington), miraculously lands his plane after a mid-air catastrophe, and saves nearly every soul on board.  After the crash, Whip is hailed as a hero, but as more is learned, something troubling is revealed." Dun dun dun dunnnn. That's pretty much all that Paramount gives away about the movie and I'll reveal little more. This one is worth seeing.  I filled a seat in the Montgomery Royal Theatres in Wheaton, Maryland this time 'round.  The popcorn was fresh and wouldn't let go of my hands.  Good times.

The Good: Denzel Washington all day long.  His performance is superb.  It is not exactly Oscar winning material (to be honest), but it is an excellent performance.  The supporting cast is also compelling (especially Kelly Reilly, John Goodman, Don Cheadle, Bruce Greenwood and Tamara Tunie). Robert Zemeckis directs the film in a way that pulls audiences into the heart of the story without sentimentality--for the most part.  And without sentimentality, the film moves you because it rings true to the real life struggles of flawed, yet heroic, people. It's quite funny in places and that humor is unexpected, but it helps to balance the mood of a film that deals with some very painful subject matter.  The special effects are magnificent--and frightening, particularly if you plan on flying any time soon.

The Bad:  The ending is a bit too neat.  Life is not neat.  It does not always work out so that heroes (even seemingly perfect ones) find peace and enlightenment after coming through a struggle. As much as I was rooting for this to happen for the "Whip" character, when it happened, the film waxed into cliche'.

The Most Important Question: Was it a Good Movie?

Oh hell yes, it was good. People were clappin, crying, and saying "Wow" at the movie's end. That's always a good sign.  Some folks stayed seated an extra long time after the film ended almost out of reverence for the movie and stayed to watch the credits roll.  On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is best, Flight is 4.5. Absolutely. 

--MLJ

Loopers, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

-->

Official Site

http://www.loopermovie.com/

Loopers, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

Okay, this week, I needed a change, a switch. Getting out of my normal movie going neighborhood was the goal. Annapolis ended up being the destination and a theater called “Bow Tie Cinemas” was the desination. I have to say that this theater is pricier than most of my normal cinematic haunts (primarily the Regal theater in Silver Spring), but it is nice. No complaints. You pay for what you get. The film that caught my dollar bills this was director Rian Johnson's Loopers.

The synopsis of the movie is this: In the not too distant future, time travel will be invented, but it will be illegal and only available on the black market. When the mob wants to get rid of someone, they will send their target 30 years into the past, where a "looper" (professional killer) who works for the mob is waiting to kill them. And in the future, all of this time travel related killing works well except when assassins do not kill their future selves (which is called "closing the loop"). Confused? You should be.

The Good: Loopers is very entertaining. The cast (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Emily Blunt, Bruce Willis, Piper Perabo, Jeff Daniels) is strong. In particular, the bookending of Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levett as older/younger versions of the same person/protagonist (“Joe”) is appealing—weird, but appealing. Rian Johnson does a wonderful job of making us like both Joe's and respect the motivations of both characters (or it would be better to say both versions of the same character). The opposing agendas of the duel-protagonist create an interesting set of ethical quandaries. It is billed as a futuristic action thriller, and I must say, it doesn't disappoint on that front. Loopers has some great special effects and engaging action, as the protagonist passionately chases “himself” down throughout the film for elimination, so as not to incur the wrath of his bosses. Also, without a doubt, the end of the film is unexpected and fresh.

The Bad: In sections, it seems violent, simply for the sake of violence. Also, the logic of the film with regard to time travel, and the space time continuum, makes no sense. Admittedly, I am not an expert in this area. Everything I know about time travel in movies pretty much comes from the movies. I dare say that most of what most people know about time travel in movies follows this same knowledge example. We may not know quantum physics, but we know the Star Trek “Prime Directive.” And that Prime Directive, as it pertained to James T. Kirk, and his associates, was not to screw up the past when they visited it. Of course, the reason that such a directive is important is that if you mess up the past, it messes up the future in galaxy-sized ways. Loopers messes with the past and the future in galaxy-sized ways. Gene Roddenberry is spinning in his grave.

In a recent interview, Rian Johnson, stated that he chose not to educate his audience about the particulars and the technical details involved with time travel in this film. He chose, instead, to rely on any existing knowledge gleaned by his audience from viewing a number of prior film and television offerings with time travel as their themes (Star Trek, Back to the Future, Time Cop, etc.). Given that, it should be no surprise to viewers that they might be confused by Loopers’ apparent disregard of the time space continuum, placing future and present versions of the same individuals side by side in the same plane.  Shouldn’t physical contact of present and future versions of the same character cause some kind of cosmic disturbance, some kind of sonic boom or something?

Another aspect of the film that seemed a bit odd is that, although this story is set in the year 2044, and time travel has been invented, gun technology has not advanced a lot. Even more curious is the fact that the protagonist tooled around in a Mazda Miata. It will take more than the passage of 30, or even 130 years, to make a Mazda Miata cool. Trust me on that.

The Most Important Question: Is it a good movie?

Yes. I won't be coy. It's not great, but the surprises at the end of the film make it worth the watch—at a matinée. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is best, this picture is a 3. I would have given it a 3.5, but there was that Mazda Miata thing.

--MLJ

Winning Matters, a Third Presidential Debate Review by Michael L. Johnson

Winning Matters, a Third Presidential Debate Review

by Michael L. Johnson

The series of presidential debates that just ended were each like rounds in a title fight. In the final installment of that political prize fight for the most powerful job in the world, President Obama won handily against challenger, Governor Mitt Romney. His strategy was clear: attack. That battle plan served him well in the second debate, and it served him even better in the third. President Obama scored decisively when he talked about Romney's foreign policy flip flops. He also performed well when he pointed out that Romney had simply been copying his positions, and posturing as if they were his own. Romney looked stunned most of the night, though he tried to cover it with smiles. That is kind of like what fighters do when they know they have been hit with a good punch. To the extent to which Governor Romney was able to push the flow of the debate in the direction of domestic issues, he was effective. I'll give him that. However, those instances were few.

It is interesting to note that some people are saying that President Obama's victory doesn't matter in the long run of the presidential battle. I doubt if they'd be saying that if Romney had won this last debate.  One headline I saw in Yahoo News proclaimed, “Obama Wins Third Debate but Romney Wins Debate Season.”1 Another headline, from an article by Brett O' Donnell, stated that “...Obama Wins Third Debate, but Romney Wins Debate War.”2 With all due respect to those honorable folks, that's bullshit. You don't win a heavy weight title fight if you lose most of the rounds—political or otherwise. In terms of the debate: Romney lost, President Obama won, America loves a winner.  Roll credits.

The Good (President Obama): He was poised and confident as he attacked Romney on his political position shifts. His illustrations of his successes in office were triumphs. Again, Obama thinks well on his feet and he certainly appeared the most presidential of the two opponents (perhaps because he is).
The Bad: He was, arguably, a bit patronizing to Romney.

The Good (Governor Romney): He wore a nice tie and can memorize talking points.
The Bad: He stumbled, and was awkward in his rhetorical assaults. He was much too subdued in his attacks on President Obama to be effective. He also agreed with President Obama to such an extent that it made you wonder why he was challenging him.

The Rating (1 to 5 where 5 is best):
President Obama: 4
Governor Romney: 1.5

--MLJ