AMISTAD
1/2
WenQing
Directed by: Steven Spielberg Written by: William Owens (writer of "Black Mutiny), David H. Franzoni, Steven Zaillian (uncredited). Produced by: Dreamworks/SKG/ Home Box Office (HBO) Cast: Djimon Hounsou (Cinque), Matthew McConaughey (Baldwin), Nigel Hawthorne (Martin Van Buren), Anthony Hopkins (John Quincy Adams), Morgan Freeman (Theodore Joadson), Pete Postlethwaite (Holabird), Anna Paquin (Queen Isabella). Length : 120 min approx Rating : *1/2SPIELBERG DOESN'T HAVE IT ANYMORE
As far as I'm concerned, Spielberg just doesn't have it anymore. Of late, the subtlety of his earlier films, their feeling, sincerity, strength of story and characterisation and all around likeability, have dwindled into the likes of JURASSIC PARK, THE L OST WORLD, and even SCHINDLER'S LIST.
Way back in the 1970s when Spielberg signed on to make JAWS, he agreed to do the film on the condition that he was allowed to not reveal the shark until half of the movie was through. And it worked out brilliantly, making the fear and suspense surrounding the shark so much more palpable and powerful.
With E.T., there was a gentle subtlety that revolved around a boy and his alien, the loneliness of a suburban household, and the marauding forces of those who want to catch E.T. (including the man with the keys hanging on his belt who was never named and only billed as "Keys" at the end of the movie).
That kind of artful film-making, attention to detail and sense of vision is all gone in AMISTAD. He's gone from subtle and intelligent to overblown and exhibitionist, as though he is tired, exhausted and has run out of creativity. Sure JURASSIC PARK was a wild ride with all the dinosaurs roaming around the place... but didn't you somehow feel that the centre of the film -- it's soul -- was conspicuously vacant? Not to mention the senseless cat and mouse terror of THE LOST WORLD... and even the plain expli citness of SCHINDLER'S LIST didn't seem to capture the horror of the holocaust, but only put together images that couldn't really approximate the experience without oversimplifying it.
With AMISTAD, it's all gone wrong in the very same way. The premise seems to be a possible epic: Africans get kidnapped and shipped to Spain, but break out of their chains midway in the trip, kill their captors, end up in America, where former President John Quincy Adams comes out of retirement to fight the case to free the Africans and let them go back to their homeland, and in the process an illegal slave trading centre in Havana gets broken and the slaves are liberated to ethnic African music a la Joh n Williams (who also can't seem to write memorable soundtracks anymore... where have all those STAR WARS and INDIANA JONES tunes gone?).
It's ironic that Anthony Hopkins' character, John Quincy Adams, is intensely concerned with "telling the story" of the Africans, so that their plight receives a tangible life of its own. This is because the plot, with its contrivances, doesn't really get the storytelling done right either. First of all, Matthew McConaughey's character is a lawyer who fights the case for the Africans and wins it the first time. But then something else crops up and the case is brought to a higher court and it's fought agai n by McConaughey and he wins again (this takes up more than half the movie mind you). Then it's taken all the way up to the Supreme Court, and all of a sudden McConaughey needs bigwig Hopkins to fight the case (he is after all, a former President, however old, rickety and crotchety). It's three court cases for the price of one, and the same darn case everytime... how could you ask for anything more? I could... it's almost like COURAGE UNDER FIRE, where Denzel Washington hears the story of Meg Ryan's last moments several times in one show... except that where Meg's story was different every single time, AMISTAD's story is the same again and again and again.
This is not to mention the abrupt, overstrained outbursts of English that the star African Cinque (Hounsou) erupts into in the middle of the trials (his repetitive "Give us, us free" is just too much to handle... especially when he never speaks English ag ain, nor got any closer to it before that point... it's agonising stuff!). In addition, AMISTAD is one of those bloody bloodless movies, with lots of gore, lots of killing but inherently no living personality of its own. The body count is spectacular... S pielberg is so explicit these days that he doesn't reserve the horror of the treatment of the slaves for our imagination (where I think it gets more stark and gripping). He actually makes a detour from the main action to depict a flashback of slaves getti ng tied together and drowned from the ship because there isn't enough food to feed them.
It's so numbing that Spielberg's vision of the film comes across as functional. The images aren't inspiring, striking or tantalizing, they're only flat, and utterly soulless. And just for good measure... people need to know that Morgan Freeman in this fil m is as much a wallflower as the other nameless slaves who never speak English, nor get any subtitles for all the mouthings they make. So what in the world is wrong with Morgan Freeman?
The one cool thing that I enjoyed in this film was the concept of completing lthe American Revolution. All men were supposed to be freed in 1776, but the clause that allowed men to keep African slaves was retained in the Constitution... the theory is tha t the American Civil War, a whole 80 years later, was the event that resolved the selective freedom of that first revolution. The freeing of the slaves in AMISTAD puts the nation at risk of Civil War, but the heroes fight the case anyway because it's all about the freedom that the American dream guarantees. Anyway the Civil War doesn't occur until almost 30 years after the events depicted in AMISTAD... yet even so, the concept was pretty interesting... but it wasn't even mentioned until one throwaway line by Hopkins in his 11 minute long summation in court (and for the last 6 minutes of his speech, every sentence sounded like a rousing conclusion, till the real conclusion, which was practically whispered out... and likely to be the most important notion o f completing the dream of freedom for all men begun in the American Revolution).
The film goes haywire with its message in the end. There's this half-baked liberation of the slaves at an illegal slave-trading fortresss, that is laughable for half its the slaves just running out... to nowhere in particular; some of them have to be gui ded by the soldiers because they're extras doing a first take. Cinque and his gang are freed to go home, only to find that his village has been sacked and his family has disappeared... and so closes the film... and so what was it getting at anyway? The A merican Dream? John Quincy Adams' chip on his shoulder about his illustrious father who was also President of America? The Africans' sad lives? McConaughey's bad hair? and poor choice of movies? (like the similarly all too explicit and faltering CONTACT) Or is AMISTAD really a showcase of how Spielberg just hasn't got it anymore... the vision is fading and his helming a film doesn't produce the imaginative and inspiring images and suggestions that they used to? I think that's what it's about finally... an d for as much as AMISTAD pretends to be an epic, it fails miserably, so maybe Spielberg might do better filming a sinking ship instead.
The Flying Inkpot's Rating System
* Wait for the TV2 broadcast.
** A little creaky, but still better than staying at home with Tonight With Gurmit.
*** Pretty good, bring a friend.
**** Amazing, potent stuff.
***** Perfection. See it twice.
Read current movie reviews at The Flying Inkpot.Read other movie reviews at The Flying Inkpot.Other film reviews by other writers can also be obtained from the InkVault through key word searches.
Explore the Flying Inkpot
They're Alive!
Concert Reviews
Bit deadish:
Other Resources at The Flying InkpotHome Readers' Comments
From: Tzin Wen (tzinwen@cyberway.com.sg)
I think the reviewer of Amistad is greatly misguided herself. Are you really sure that ET was subtle? I recall when that came out everyone was saying it was manipulative in the extreme! Amistad is great film making. The script was excellent. Complex and dense. Sure the music was overwrought at points but I think these are minor faults to an otherwise inspiring movie. The cinematography was wonderful too. Spielberg definitely still has it and he is maturing as a film maker. His visuals are always engaging and he is one of the few directors who can make a seemingly dull topic exciting. It is a historical fact that the case went all the way to the Supreme Court in 1841. In reality the case had to be fought again but Spielberg did not repeat the facts of the case over and over again. He wisely chose to show the middle passage in the middle of the film and Adams' summation at the end is a brilliant conclusion to the film. It is a very moving speech and one of the best written in a long time. I think the reveiwer has been jaded in the extreme and has forgoten what great filmaking is. Schindler's List is a classic and will always be so. These are historical films of importance and they present things as they probably did happen. Are you afraid to face the truth?
From: Wayne (Wayne@WAG.com)
i agree with the reviewer of Amistad... i watched lots of Spielberg movies... and i like his earlier ones like Close Encounters and Color Purple... somehow Amistad feels like an African Schindler's List and it doesn't have any heart. It's not as well written as Spielberg's other films, maybe that's why Steven Zallian was uncredited, coz he didn't think Amistad wasn't worth being connected to. Yeah but i think the reviewer is a little jaded, maybe he's watched too many movies and so doesn't feel for the subject anymore. Amistad WAS kind of nice and feeling... but not enough, and we expect more from Spielberg, maybe that's why it was so disappointing
From: weiwen (weiboon@pacific.net.sg)
Erm...usually people go for movies for 3 reasons: (1)They like the story (2) They expect fantastic special effects (3) They are very bored at home. Amistad is not a Titanic and we cannot expect it to have interesting backdrops and all. Its all about how the court case was fought all the way. I feel that the actor (that african) was quite irritating throughout the show. There are good actors inside...but none of them actually shine because the show was a little choppy...(where was Morgan Freeman?) Asking such a good actor to sit at the benches is such a waste. John Williams has always been criticised for coming up with works bearing resemblence to the likes of "typical Star Wars AGAIN...", and has been trying out new ideas (like in Schindler's List) so that we will not remember him just for fanfares, fanfares and more fanfares. I think we cannot fault him for coming up with that kind of score for Amistad. He did quite a good job. Perhaps most of us will be more comfortable with some sort of a "main theme"... On the whole, i think this movie is more suitable for those who are interested in the story-line. Not much effects...no sensational theme song with tear-jerking lyrics, no Leonardo...hence those who went for the show because they were bored at home, will find it hard to enjoy.
From: Portia Baisden (pbaisden@hotmail.com / Tuesday, October 27, 1998 at 06:50:57)
Amistad was a great movie!! If you watch a movie and analyze every part in it, of course you won't enjoy it. You may as well stay at home anyway. Which I think the reviewer of this movie should do. This is not the first time that I have disagreed with this person in reviewing a movie. What do you want? The actors to come out of the screen and shake you?
From: ( / Tuesday, March 2, 1999 at 22:07:38)
From: Jennifer (too2foxxy@aol.com / Wednesday, March 10, 1999 at 14:50:12)
I was extremely disappointed in your review of Amistad for one simple reason. You seem to be under the assumption that the plot of this movie was written. For example, you critize the plot (talking about the ending when Cinque finds his village ransacked and his family gone) as though it was a poorly written story. I hate to be the one to break it to you but this is a TRUE story and the plot is not what you should be critizing. If you wish to critisize Stephen Speilberg then you may do it by comment on charaterization, portrayl, etc. It is in poor judgement to critisize the story line since Speilberg portrayed the TRUE story quite well.
From: Tomas Vittmo (Tomas.Vittmo@delta.telenordia.se / Tuesday, July 27, 1999 at 02:00:42)
How can you give such a low rating? Did you watch the movie at all? I say: This is a great movie, that should be seen by as many as possible... -Shame on you stupid! /T.
