The Votometre doesn't show decimals, but really my number rating is 6.9. Today, anyway....I may change my mind tomorrow.
Knights of the South Bronx, Akeelah and the Bee, Glory Road- we've seen this movie before, and we've seen the same themes before. A feel-good underdog story with the typical American cinema's portrayal of Blacks centred one-dimensionally on how they are forced to relate to the issue of "race" in a racist and classist society.
At least the characters in this film get to display their full humanity and are not reduced to one-note caricatures, centred on their "race". These characters are not stereotypes, but fully realized human beings who have decided that not only education, but intellectualism, is as much their birthright as any American.
There are major problems with the script and/or the editing of this film that will hopefully be rectified in the DVD edition. There are several character arcs that have no logical building, just a juxtaposition of problem and solution later in the narrative. Forest Whittaker's humiliation during the pig incident, and his subsequent redemption in his son's eyes when dealing with Denzel in jail- there's dramatic stuff missing in the middle that makes me think that this is a three-hour film. Ophrah has been known to do those, so why not here?
We all know Ophrah Winfrey is full of good intentions. But as a film-maker, whether in front of the camera, or behind it, she has a very limited repertoire of themes that inspire her. We all know that the poor lady practices counter-transference in everything she does, but funding a $30 Million psychotherapy session should not be one area of her practice.
By fictionalizing a true story (not Harvard), you rob the narrative of its one true virtue- it really happened. And by fictionalizing it, you make it merely product to stand with the other films of identical theme. I don't buy the film-makers claim that by altering the venue from USC to Harvard they are able to show the magnitude of the Wiley team's achievement. Some careful exposition through the film could have easily made USC do quite nicely.
No, Harvard is the symbol of the white eastern intellectual elite, of white class and privilege, and that is why the film-makers chose Harvard. I am not sure that this is a legitimate reason for me to complain, though. As the Harvard Chancellor says in introducing the Debaters, Harvard is the school of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and numerous other US Presidents. Harvard IS America: the Debators are knocking at America's door and saying "we coming in 'cause we live here, this is our home".
The characters in the film certainly are enamoured with the possibility of being associated with Harvard. The device of the black butler at Harvard is not fully explored, but the choice to include him accentuates the viewers' perceptions of Harvard as a racist institution, and a locus for racial oppression.
Part of the problem in North American education (in Canada and the U.S.) is alienation of certain groups by not telling their stories, rendering them 'invisable' to themselves and the wider society. When you fictionalize an important human story, you are essentially saying to everyone that the real history isn't good enough. And it IS! It seems to me that that can be potentially damaging, because you are saying that the real story isn't worth being told. And it IS!
Note to Denzel- take the training wheels off, you did "Antoine Fischer", you didn't have to film it twice, and please don't do it a third time. Antoine was a much more self-assured and cinematic work.
This film would have worked far better as a stage-play- not surprising since it was written by a Pulitzer-prize winning playwright. The actors do their best to "elevate the material" and are actually the reason why the film is worthwhile to watch and engaging: the actors are uniformly charming and charismatic. It is their feelings and common humanity that I empathize with on screen.
This film is set in the Great Depression. This is of little consequence to the main characters of the film. But, Denzel's Communism seems to be a throw-away theme, as are the plight of labourers and share-croppers themselves. "Of Mice and Men", or John Sayles' "Matewan", or even the Coen Brothers' "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" are films that explore these themes with much more authenticity.
Social injustice is portrayed in this film as racism, not as the poverty that creates an underclass, regardless of skin colour. In the climatic debating scene, political reaction to racism is the theme, provided by the debaters own experience of witnessing a lynching.
Yet, racism has its roots in classism, and economic oppression that could have equally been cited in this movie. It seems to me that Denzel's communist character could have made better use of this avenue of social commentary. But perhaps, being an American film, nobody wants to hold capitalism itself responsible for racial oppression, and therefore, the larger issue.
The central characters are middle class, even in a racist society. And it is worth remembering that even in the Depression, the employment rate was 70%.
Does civil disobedience have a place in today's society? Or, is that theme used in this film as a precursor to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's? With Barack Obama less than 12 months away from his Inauguration, Stephanie Wilson sitting on Harvard's Board of Governors, and Ophrah the richest woman on the planet, memory of injustice should be memory of fact, and anger at injustice directed towards the present, and focused on eliminating that injustice.
Knights of the South Bronx, Akeelah and the Bee, Glory Road- we've seen this movie before, and we've seen the same themes before. A feel-good underdog story with the typical American cinema's portrayal of Blacks centred one-dimensionally on how they are forced to relate to the issue of "race" in a racist and classist society.
At least the characters in this film get to display their full humanity and are not reduced to one-note caricatures, centred on their "race". These characters are not stereotypes, but fully realized human beings who have decided that not only education, but intellectualism, is as much their birthright as any American.
There are major problems with the script and/or the editing of this film that will hopefully be rectified in the DVD edition. There are several character arcs that have no logical building, just a juxtaposition of problem and solution later in the narrative. Forest Whittaker's humiliation during the pig incident, and his subsequent redemption in his son's eyes when dealing with Denzel in jail- there's dramatic stuff missing in the middle that makes me think that this is a three-hour film. Ophrah has been known to do those, so why not here?
We all know Ophrah Winfrey is full of good intentions. But as a film-maker, whether in front of the camera, or behind it, she has a very limited repertoire of themes that inspire her. We all know that the poor lady practices counter-transference in everything she does, but funding a $30 Million psychotherapy session should not be one area of her practice.
By fictionalizing a true story (not Harvard), you rob the narrative of its one true virtue- it really happened. And by fictionalizing it, you make it merely product to stand with the other films of identical theme. I don't buy the film-makers claim that by altering the venue from USC to Harvard they are able to show the magnitude of the Wiley team's achievement. Some careful exposition through the film could have easily made USC do quite nicely.
No, Harvard is the symbol of the white eastern intellectual elite, of white class and privilege, and that is why the film-makers chose Harvard. I am not sure that this is a legitimate reason for me to complain, though. As the Harvard Chancellor says in introducing the Debaters, Harvard is the school of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and numerous other US Presidents. Harvard IS America: the Debators are knocking at America's door and saying "we coming in 'cause we live here, this is our home".
The characters in the film certainly are enamoured with the possibility of being associated with Harvard. The device of the black butler at Harvard is not fully explored, but the choice to include him accentuates the viewers' perceptions of Harvard as a racist institution, and a locus for racial oppression.
Part of the problem in North American education (in Canada and the U.S.) is alienation of certain groups by not telling their stories, rendering them 'invisable' to themselves and the wider society. When you fictionalize an important human story, you are essentially saying to everyone that the real history isn't good enough. And it IS! It seems to me that that can be potentially damaging, because you are saying that the real story isn't worth being told. And it IS!
Note to Denzel- take the training wheels off, you did "Antoine Fischer", you didn't have to film it twice, and please don't do it a third time. Antoine was a much more self-assured and cinematic work.
This film would have worked far better as a stage-play- not surprising since it was written by a Pulitzer-prize winning playwright. The actors do their best to "elevate the material" and are actually the reason why the film is worthwhile to watch and engaging: the actors are uniformly charming and charismatic. It is their feelings and common humanity that I empathize with on screen.
This film is set in the Great Depression. This is of little consequence to the main characters of the film. But, Denzel's Communism seems to be a throw-away theme, as are the plight of labourers and share-croppers themselves. "Of Mice and Men", or John Sayles' "Matewan", or even the Coen Brothers' "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" are films that explore these themes with much more authenticity.
Social injustice is portrayed in this film as racism, not as the poverty that creates an underclass, regardless of skin colour. In the climatic debating scene, political reaction to racism is the theme, provided by the debaters own experience of witnessing a lynching.
Yet, racism has its roots in classism, and economic oppression that could have equally been cited in this movie. It seems to me that Denzel's communist character could have made better use of this avenue of social commentary. But perhaps, being an American film, nobody wants to hold capitalism itself responsible for racial oppression, and therefore, the larger issue.
The central characters are middle class, even in a racist society. And it is worth remembering that even in the Depression, the employment rate was 70%.
Does civil disobedience have a place in today's society? Or, is that theme used in this film as a precursor to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's? With Barack Obama less than 12 months away from his Inauguration, Stephanie Wilson sitting on Harvard's Board of Governors, and Ophrah the richest woman on the planet, memory of injustice should be memory of fact, and anger at injustice directed towards the present, and focused on eliminating that injustice.