Friday, September 12, 2014

AMISTAD MOVIE REVIEW


About a 1839 mutiny aboard a slave ship that is traveling towards the northeastern coast of America. Much of the story involves a court-room drama about the free man who led the revolt.
Directed by:


The movie “Amistad” is based on a true story. This movie was depicted and focuses much more about illegal slavery of the African natives and how they could be freed. Searching and finding for answers is very much challenging and frustrating to the persons who volunteered their selves to help the victims. Slavery could, I suppose, be seen largely as a matter of laws and property--at least to those benefitting from it. This legal distinction is not made as clear as it could have been; the international slave trade had been outlawed by treaties by 1839, the year of the landmark Amistad incident, but those who were already slaves remained the property of their masters--as did their children. The moral hair-splitting underlying that distinction is truly depraved, but on it depends the defense of Cinque, the leader of the Africans, and his fellow mutineers.

The film opens on the ship Amistad, where Cinque (Djimon Hounsou) leads the rebellion to fight against the Spanish crew of the ship taking them to a Havana slave market to another destination in Cuba. He was able to free himself from shackles and release his fellow prisoners. Bloodsheds are everywhere as cruelty fighting back and angered dominated in the scene. Leaving two men who bought them for the reason they promised to take them back and guide the ship to Africa where they came from. But betrayal arises between them and instead they guide it into U.S. waters, and the Africans find themselves in an American court.

Fortunately, it is a Northern court, or they would have little chance at all. They are unfortunate at first with their defense team, which is led by Roger Baldwin (Matthew McConaughey), a real estate lawyer who bases his case on property law and only slowly comes to see his clients as human beings. The cause is supported by two Boston abolitionists, a former slave named Joadson (Morgan Freeman) and an immigrant named Tappan (Stellan Skarsgard). And eventually, on appeal, former President John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins) argues eloquently for the freedom of the men.
“Amistad,” as compared to Spielberg's “Schindler's List,” is not just simply an argument against immorality. Both movies are showing of the evilness of slavery and the Holocaust at those rigid times. Both films are about the ways of good men who tries to work realistically within an evil system to spare a few of its victims. Schindler's strategies are ingenious and suspenseful, and lead to a more gripping and powerful film than the legal tactics in “Amistad,” where lawyers in powdered wigs try to determine the origin of men whose language they do not speak. “Schindler’s List” works better as narrative because it is about a risky deception, while “Amistad” is about the searching for the truth that, if found, will be considered as a small consolation to the millions of existing slaves.
I was horrible with my emotions in “Amistad” where there was a scene of food shortage on the ship. There were weaker captives chained together and thrown down into the ocean leaving them drowning. It was as I felt my heart crumped and my eyes were unable to seek justice for those poor and innocent Africans. Another sequence in which the mechanics of the slave trade are examined as Africans captures members of enemy tribes and sells them to slave traders. A scene where Cinque sees African violets in John Quincy Adams' greenhouse and is seized with homesickness and Cinque's memory of his wife left in Africa.
“Amistad” the way it provides faces and names for its African characters, whom the movies so often make into faceless victims was the most valuable part. Cinque stands out as the leader of the captives emerges as a powerful individual who once-free farmer and has lost his wife and family. He could not speak English, but amazingly learns a little while in prison.






Luckily, they found a translator who helps in bridging them to understand him and helps him express his dismay at a legal system that may free him but will not affirm the true nature of the crime against him. To see its contradictions, he learns enough of Western civilization, as in a scene where a fellow captive uses an illustrated Bible to explain how he can identify with Jesus.






And there is a touching scene between lawyer and client in which Joadson at last talks to Cinque as a man and not as a piece in a puzzle. “Give us free!” Cinque cries in a powerful moment in the courtroom, indicating how irrelevant a “not guilty” verdict would be to the real facts of his case. 











Djimon Hounsou's (Cinque) performance depends largely on his screen presence, which is formidable. Some of the other performances are disappointing. I was surprised how little importance or screen time was given to the Morgan Freeman character, who in his few scenes indicates the volumes that remain concealed. I thought he would be the man who could save the Africans from slavery but it seems like he was just only part of the movie as a decoration so that some people would be interested to watch the movie as he is one of the fine actors who has a heart touching and one of a kind movies.

Matthew McConaughey's character is necessarily unfocused as the defense attorney; he proceeds from moral blindness to a light that surprises no one, and while we are happy for him we are not, under the circumstances, much moved.






Nigel Hawthorne plays President Martin Van Buren, who is portrayed as a spineless compromiser who wants only to keep the South off his back.




Anthony Hopkins’ powerful performance as old John Quincy Adams, who just speaks for 11 minutes in defense of the defendants, and holds the courtroom (and the audience) spellbound. It was considered as one of the great movie courtroom speeches. It was really the heart of the film. It captures the mind and heart of viewers bringing them to a real courtroom. But in praising it, I touch on the film's great weakness: It is too much about the law and not enough about the victims.

No comments:

Post a Comment