Amistad (1997)
Slavery! Racism! Oration! History! (Well, kind of). Directed by Steven Spielberg.
"Amistad" was released in 1997, Spielberg's first directorial outing since "Schindler's List." And just like "Schindler's List," he released it in the same year as a "Jurassic Park" movie - but 1997 was no 1995, as both films are hollow echoes of the greatness of "Schindler" and the first "Jurassic Park."
It's not so much that "Amistad" is a bad film - it's just that it becomes ponderous; a long movie that is so excited to be telling audiences that it is an "important" film dealing with "important" topics that the story gets suffocated. The history is muddled, as one would expect from a historical film, but it tends to get muddled in a way that doesn't even lend itself to a cinematic style.
The story of a slave ship revolt and the ensuing legal battle could actually make for an interesting story. And it has a great cast, but it just can't ever seem to get over its own ponderousness. One of the things that "Schindler" has that this doesn't is that it actually paints its protagonist as a person - he's not a saint, he's not perfect, but he ends up making the right choices. In this one, we know exactly who the "good" characters are, as you can practically see the halos over their heads.
Additionally, the constant drum beat of "CIVIL WAR" gets old - the events of the Amistad occurred 20 years before the Civil War. While slavery and its related issues were a problem from the beginning of the US, the attempts to shoe-horn "CIVIL WAR" into the movie seem odd, and just lend to the air of "THIS IS IMPORTANT" that the movie gives off.
Finally, for a Spielberg film, the camera work is fairly boring. Although it can be difficult to get dynamic and interesting shots in a courtroom, it is possible. But most of the courtroom scenes (and there are a lot) just end up being fairly boring visually.
"Amistad" was released in 1997, Spielberg's first directorial outing since "Schindler's List." And just like "Schindler's List," he released it in the same year as a "Jurassic Park" movie - but 1997 was no 1995, as both films are hollow echoes of the greatness of "Schindler" and the first "Jurassic Park."
It's not so much that "Amistad" is a bad film - it's just that it becomes ponderous; a long movie that is so excited to be telling audiences that it is an "important" film dealing with "important" topics that the story gets suffocated. The history is muddled, as one would expect from a historical film, but it tends to get muddled in a way that doesn't even lend itself to a cinematic style.
The story of a slave ship revolt and the ensuing legal battle could actually make for an interesting story. And it has a great cast, but it just can't ever seem to get over its own ponderousness. One of the things that "Schindler" has that this doesn't is that it actually paints its protagonist as a person - he's not a saint, he's not perfect, but he ends up making the right choices. In this one, we know exactly who the "good" characters are, as you can practically see the halos over their heads.
Additionally, the constant drum beat of "CIVIL WAR" gets old - the events of the Amistad occurred 20 years before the Civil War. While slavery and its related issues were a problem from the beginning of the US, the attempts to shoe-horn "CIVIL WAR" into the movie seem odd, and just lend to the air of "THIS IS IMPORTANT" that the movie gives off.
Finally, for a Spielberg film, the camera work is fairly boring. Although it can be difficult to get dynamic and interesting shots in a courtroom, it is possible. But most of the courtroom scenes (and there are a lot) just end up being fairly boring visually.
posted by Mike at 5:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home