| Reviews |
 |
 |
 |
| Tuesday, 30 November 1999 00:00 | |
|
Amistad
Few
films have portrayed vital historical events with as much compassion and
political insight as Steven Spielberg's Amistad
does. Amistad
focuses on an 1839 mutiny of slaves on the Spanish slave ship Amistad
and the court battles that followed after they were recaptured. The film
traces the relationships between the Africans' leader Cinque, their
initially cynical lawyer and representatives of the abolitionist
movement fighting to end slavery.
As the
film progresses, we see both the horrors of the slave trade and the
determination with which the Africans resisted their captivity - as well
as the transformation of all the individuals involved in the struggle
for freedom. When the Amistad case is finally brought before the Supreme
Court, John Quincy Adams - a former US president who became a leading
abolitionist voice - delivers a powerful speech denouncing slavery and
calling into question the very foundations of US society.
Spielberg
uses the story of the Amistad revolt to open a window on the deepening
conflict between pro- and anti-slavery forces in the pre-Civil War era.
The African slave trade was banned in the US in 1808, but slavery
remained legal until the Civil War in the 1860s. The federal government
was deeply divided over the issue of slavery. Sections of the government
tied to northern industry increasingly viewed slavery as a negative
force. But southern plantation owners - who relied on slave labour -
would do anything to protect their profits.
At the
time of the Amistad revolt, the entire political establishment was
desperately trying to prevent open conflict. The Amistad case caught the
legal and political system in a bind. On the one hand, none of the
leading politicians of the time - especially President Martin Van Buren
- wanted to risk war and their own careers by taking a stand against
slavery. But the Spanish slave traders who laid claim to the Africans on
the Amistad had clearly violated US law. In this situation,
abolitionists saw the Amistad case as a unique opportunity to strike a
blow against slavery.
In
making the film Amistad,
Spielberg has drawn some criticism - much of it from conservatives
unhappy with any portrayal of the struggle against racism, but some from
figures on the left. Historian Eric Foner, for example, criticised
Spielberg for focusing on the issue of slavery rather than the
illegality of the international slave trade. Foner, the author of
several excellent books on African-American history, went so far as to
say in one interview that the Amistad case "had nothing to do with
slavery in this country."
This is
absurd. The Amistad court case did focus on breaches of international
trade laws rather than the abolition of slavery in itself. But, as Foner
himself pointed out, the case was a rallying point for anti-slavery
forces in the US.
Amistad
is not a documentary. As a fictionalised dramatisation of a real event,
it takes liberties with the actual history of the case. For example,
Foner is right to point out that Spielberg downplayed the vital role
many abolitionists played in the Amistad case. But even though the facts
may be off on several points, the movie brilliantly captures the broader
reality of the time.
Amistad
shows the hypocrisy of a society which claimed to stand for freedom and
equality for all while enslaving people on a mass scale for the sake of
profit and political power. It shows black and white people overcoming
barriers of language, nation and race to fight oppression together.
Most
importantly, Amistad
sends the message that fighting back against racism and injustice is the
only way to preserve humanity under inhuman conditions.
We could
do with a lot more films like Amistad.
Katherine
Dwyer
The
Castle
The
Castle is a simple story of the
Kerrigans, a typical Aussie working class family and their fight to save
their home from being taken by the "big guys," in this case a company
who want to use the Kerrigan's land to extend the local airport, which
just happens to be next door.
With
the use of a very sparse cinematography, the movie relies heavily on a
plot that is always see-through and rather simple. However, The
Castle could have been a great film
if it hadn't constantly left you despising the people you were supposed
to be getting behind - the Kerrigans. The father, Daryll, is portrayed
as an idiot with a very naive world view. Mum is a woman who seems to
glorify in housework, the three sons are simpletons, and Tracy, the
daughter, is ridiculed for having a TAFE diploma in hairdressing. With a
useless lawyer, the Kerrigans & Co. go to court to try and save
their homes. Things go very badly until a miraculously benevolent QC
comes to their rescue and saves the day.
The
messages you get from The Castle are
very mixed. Do you love or hate the Kerrigans? You certainly end up
reviling the company that tries to take their home, but at the same time
the legal system comes out just fine. Good triumphs over evil and the
saintly QC's charity is just "how things should be." Ordinary people, it
seems, are powerless in the face of large corporations, and must rely on
the odd bit of ruling class charity for their survival. Furthermore,
ordinary people in The Castle
are just imbeciles anyway, so why should we support them? The makers of
this movie don't really answer our questions.
While
some moments in The Castle
are certainly very enjoyable, and while the ending is somewhat
satisfying, bad stereotypes irk you the whole movie through. I had hoped
for better from the people that brought us the great Aussie satire,
Frontline. Perhaps the next film will be an improvement.
Simon
Edmunds
U-Turn
Billed
as "Sex. Murder. Betrayal. Everything that makes life worth living," U-Turn
is a film that fails to say
anything in a way that fails to inspire anyone. The odd angles, mix of
filmstock and intercutting that have worked so well with Stone's other
films, here are irritating and needless. 10 different shots of the same
mundane action with no relevance to the film, while stylish, hardly help
the plot. And the plot is U-Turn's real downfall.
Stone's
past movies such as Nixon and JFK, even Natural Born Killers, have at
least had some substance, something to say. U-Turn has nothing to say
but says it loudly, like some bad imitation of Red Rocks West, which U-Turn
bears striking similarities to - a drifter (Sean Penn) is caught up in a
crazy redneck town resplendent with femme fatale (Jennifer Lopez) and
her brutal husband (Nick Nolte). The crosses, double- and
triple-crosses, schemes and gore are all pretty see-through, as is the
disappointing ending.
Nick
Nolte's performance as a real estate agent gone bad is one of the few
bright spots in the movie, as is Billy Bob Thornton's excruciatingly
annoying mechanic. However, the characters in U-Turn
are all very one sided, you're only left wondering who'll they
double-cross next.
I
recommend seeing U-Turn, if only for Nolte, Thornton, and to see just
how much money a modern movie-director like Oliver Stone can waste. Yes!
it's moody, Yes! it's stylish, Yes! the score is cool, but No! there's
no substance or originality to be found.
Simon
Edmunds
Television
Ignore,
for the moment, which giant broadcasting companies own which TV
programmes and who reaps the profit from what (we'll come back to that
in a future issue) - suffice to say that Disney/MGM are the major
players at the moment - so keep hold of your cuddly lion, and be careful
it doesn't bite your head off. For now, we're just going to look at the
content of some of the programmes on the box.
Let's
start with The Simpsons.
Okay, they're not middle class, and white - they're working class-ish
and yellow - but still they represent white middle class values. You
don't believe me? You really think it's anti-establishment and
subversive? Let's see: they are the nuclear family existing as a bulwark
against the evil forces in society, Mr Burns is a proven bastard but he
is shown only as a greedy individual who can be redeemed - not an
inevitable product of capitalism. Marge holds the family together,
there's always a happy ending, social problems are dealt with in a
problem-of-the-week format which sees the Simpsons helping out those
less fortunate than themselves, and they all go to church every Sunday.
Sure,
they address all that popularist stuff Gen X was always obsessed about -
like who's looking after the environment while they're out surfing, and
the way Coke/McDonald's/Burger King are exploitative multinationals who
don't give a shit but they can't help drinking/eating it anyway - and,
yes, the programme also reminds us that Gen X itself as much a media
creation as The Simpsons - but the bottom line, follow me here, is that
Middle America emerges from each episode unscathed. And that's the
point.
Friends,
Seinfeld, Murphy Brown (Well, I
watch Murphy Brown),
work by appropriating enough cultural symbols to force patterns of
identification and agreement among us, the target viewers, but without
confronting power inequalities at all. There is no class system here,
they're all about white collar workers competing economically with
members of their own class. The connections Friends
attempts to make to working class life are totally ridiculous - Rachel
the waitress, Monica the unemployed chef, Joey the unemployed actor They
all have well off families, live in those big apartments, and they're so
attractive, and just too good to be true - they could be actors.
Oh, yes, that's right, they are acting.
Murphy
Brown is a solo mum without a kid. Where is Avery when she's working all
night, attending balls at the White House, and speeding around the
streets of Washington late at night squeezed into a taxi with Corky,
Miles, Jim and Frank? She's supposed to be an emblem for single working
mothers, but what's the message? Pop out the kid in episode one
then keep it in a cupboard? There's nothing for working class mothers to
identify with. Seinfeld
is probably the most hopeful of the three, the message for socialists
here is if you lock the whole educated middle class inside Jerry's
apartment with their existential angst, eventually they'll self-destruct.
What
happens when they try to make these programmes in New Zealand? They're
really, really bad, that's what, although, you have to admit, City
Life has its own kind of charm.
Despite its mish-mash of characters, it manages to stick to the educated
middle-class beautiful young people formula, although it owes more to Melrose
Place than to Friends.
And, like Melrose Place,
nobody ever quite figures out what it's all about. There's no "issue
of the week," no call to action, it's just these selfish people's
pointless lives. And I'm the only person I know who compulsively watches
it.
Fiona
Bowker
Death
to the Pixies
Neither
big cheeses Nirvana, icon PJ Harvey nor art princes Pavement would exist
were it not for the noise made by this motley Bostonian quartet. Between
1987 and 93, they married dissonant guitar, singing in Spanish and
screaming over surf tunes that rearranged the building blocks of rock
and injected new raw materials into its structure to boot. This
retrospective reveals how much guitar bands have stalled since, because
any new outfit making sounds as wild, weird and hummable as this would
be instantly deified.
Thematically,
chief Pixie Black Francis, later Frank Black, pre-empted the X-Files
(Monkey Gone to Heaven, Velouria, Planet of Sound) and the fascination
for the macabre that propels the likes of Trent Reznor (Debaser, Gouge
Away, Wave of Mutilation). The band were also extremely potent onstage,
as the free live CD, taken from their peak 89-90 period, demonstrates.
These really are all time greats.
Gareth
Grundy
|
Login
