I believe this film fails to do what it set out to. Intentions were doubtless noble but there are too many simplifications there for it to be convincing.
First of all, we see next to nothing of the brainwashing that the supposedly highly intelligent Derek must have gone through in order to become the person he is in the beginning. The filmmakers seem to think that a few scenes with Derek's father spewing benighted nonsense is enough to explain that. I would have thought that the propaganda would have to be fed to him in a more intelligent, subtle way for him to buy into it, but apparently he just takes his father's (inane) word as gospel while he learns nothing from his mother. And this even though whatever brains he has he definitely inherited from her - daddy is nothing but derisive about Derek's doing well at school. Now why would a smart boy be so one-sidedly influenced by the parent with whom he has the least in common?
Second, the same goes for his transformation the other way round. I understand that the film is "based on a true story" (not that *that* is usually a stamp of excellence), so the transformation did happen. But I do suspect that something has been left out. Don't get me wrong, it's fine for the film to be very loosely based on the story that inspired it, so long as the film makes its own sense. Sadly, it doesn't. So the other 'Arians' mistreat him (putting it politely), and he finds himself laughing at his black co-worker's joke? Well, Redemption City, here we come. From cold-blooded killer to fluffy do-gooder in two easy steps.
And I haven't even begun to talk about the real wrongness: The way the camera accentuates Derek's hot body. The larger-than-life slo-mo of his semi-nude form as he triumphantly turns in the police car's headlights (after stomping the black boy's head into the kerb - or curb, for the American reader). Why is Derek made to look sexy in this scene? Or the Riefenstahl-like - and insultingly unrealistic - basketball scene? Is there a point or was it just that Norton wanted to look good? He succeeded there, but at the expense of what I thought the film was supposed to convey.
All in all, the film's message drowns in cliché in form and content both, oversimplification, an embarrassingly tear-jerking score, and Norton's ill-concealed enjoyment of his own sexiness. That, to me, is just plain wrong. I usually like Norton's performances but not this one. No wonder director Tony Kaye washed his hands of it. Rumour has it that Norton took over much of the director's job. That was clearly a mistake. A shame, considering that racism in the US (or anywhere) is an issue that needs to be dealt with properly.
First of all, we see next to nothing of the brainwashing that the supposedly highly intelligent Derek must have gone through in order to become the person he is in the beginning. The filmmakers seem to think that a few scenes with Derek's father spewing benighted nonsense is enough to explain that. I would have thought that the propaganda would have to be fed to him in a more intelligent, subtle way for him to buy into it, but apparently he just takes his father's (inane) word as gospel while he learns nothing from his mother. And this even though whatever brains he has he definitely inherited from her - daddy is nothing but derisive about Derek's doing well at school. Now why would a smart boy be so one-sidedly influenced by the parent with whom he has the least in common?
Second, the same goes for his transformation the other way round. I understand that the film is "based on a true story" (not that *that* is usually a stamp of excellence), so the transformation did happen. But I do suspect that something has been left out. Don't get me wrong, it's fine for the film to be very loosely based on the story that inspired it, so long as the film makes its own sense. Sadly, it doesn't. So the other 'Arians' mistreat him (putting it politely), and he finds himself laughing at his black co-worker's joke? Well, Redemption City, here we come. From cold-blooded killer to fluffy do-gooder in two easy steps.
And I haven't even begun to talk about the real wrongness: The way the camera accentuates Derek's hot body. The larger-than-life slo-mo of his semi-nude form as he triumphantly turns in the police car's headlights (after stomping the black boy's head into the kerb - or curb, for the American reader). Why is Derek made to look sexy in this scene? Or the Riefenstahl-like - and insultingly unrealistic - basketball scene? Is there a point or was it just that Norton wanted to look good? He succeeded there, but at the expense of what I thought the film was supposed to convey.
All in all, the film's message drowns in cliché in form and content both, oversimplification, an embarrassingly tear-jerking score, and Norton's ill-concealed enjoyment of his own sexiness. That, to me, is just plain wrong. I usually like Norton's performances but not this one. No wonder director Tony Kaye washed his hands of it. Rumour has it that Norton took over much of the director's job. That was clearly a mistake. A shame, considering that racism in the US (or anywhere) is an issue that needs to be dealt with properly.