# Amistad (1997)

### reviewed by
Ted Prigge

    AMISTAD (1997)
    A Film Review by Ted Prigge
    Copyright 1998 Ted Prigge

Director: Steven Spielberg Writer: David H. Frinzoni (based on the book "Black Mutiny" by William Owens) Starring: Djimon Hounsou, Matthew McConaughey, Morgan Freeman, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Nigel Hawthorne, David Paymer, Pete Postlethwaite, Jeremy Northam, Xander Berkeley, Paul Guilfoyle, Geno Silva, John Ortiz, Peter Firth, Arliss Howard, Razaaq Adoti, Abu Bakaar Fofanah, Anna Paquin, Tomás Milián, Kevin J. O'Connor, Austin Pendleton

In 1839, the slaves on the Spanish Ship "La Amistad" revolted, killed all but two captors (two because none of them knew how to steer the ship), who proceeded to sail them to America instead of Africa like they said they would. Once there, a series of long, controversial hearings were heard, debating over their origin, which would decide if the slaves were legal (which means they are technically murders) or not (which means they were merely defending themselves, and hey, that's okay). It's a true story, and I didn't even know about it.

Upon learning about this and how undertold it is, Steven Spielberg thought it was high time someone made a big budget Dreamworks movie out of it, directed by him as his next "Schindler's List" (since he directed "The Lost World" this summer, he thought he'd try to do what he did in '93, otherwise known as "The Year of Spielberg"). The result? "Amistad." With a big vast cast of everyone from Anthony Hopkins to Anna Paquin to Austin freaking Pendleton, very impressive production designs, and lots of debate over freedom to stir everyone up into a pissed-off and emotionally moved frenzy.

In fact "Amistad" is so big that it's almost disappointing. "Amistad" not only wants to be Spilberg's next "Schindler's List," but it wants to be: a) as emotionally moving as that film; b) as monetarily successful as it; and c) the big winner in the Oscar race. It's hand-crafted so that everything about it is supposed to stir someone up, and filled with scenes of horror, beauty, and various other stuff that melts Oscar's heart. But why isn't it all this?

Well, there's a couple problems with the film. First off, the film limits the debate over slavery in a couple ways: first, making the film's outcome only affect a small group of slaves - no big grand debate here; and because it's only a trial. The film plays like this: a great 15 minute introduction where we see the bloody, gory, and charging in oh so many ways revolt; then 2 hours and 15 minutes of various courtrooms and talking, broken up sporadically with scenes like one where the unofficial slave leader and on-again-off-again protagonist, Cinqué (Djimon Hounsou), stands up in court to scream repeatedly "Give us free!" while John Williams' score pounds the emotion into our brains so that we don't have any other thoughts than "Guess the film wants me to cry now."

Another problem is lack of focus in some areas. Is it a film about slavery and its affects on man, or is it just a big debate by people who only know from second hand experience? For maximum effect, the film should have been about Cinqué and his experience as the leader of the alleged slaves. It is sometimes. But the film also decides to focus on other people, placing them in the foreground for awhile. The other main character is a real estate lawyer named Baldwin, played by Matthew McConaughey, which brings out deja vu since his character in this is only slightly different from the one he played in "A Time to Kill" (though admittingly he does it so well). He takes over the story sometimes, presenting a man who gets into the job thinking as the slaves as objects to debate over, and eventually thinking of them as people. It's too weakly shown, and perhaps it could have been tossed all together and had him get into the job to make sure they become free. But the film just shows it, and almost dumps him later on in the film, then picks him back up.

This goes with many of the characters, most of whom are underwritten (I suspect there's a big-ass director's cut somewhere, where everyone gets a chance to grow - but I'm sure there's not many people who want to see it). Take for instance Morgan Freeman's character, an ex-slave who's now a civilian/abolitionist (working with another abolitionist, played by the great Stellan Skarsgård, now of "Good Will Hunting" fame): he never grows throughout and the main reason he seems to be there, other than for historical accuracy perhaps, is so that there can be a few scenes where he remembers the pain of being a slave. That's it.

In fact, many characters can be summed up in either very short sentences or mere words. Nigel Hawthorne's current President Van Buren is sheepish, since he has to try and not create a Civil War and also hold a good contract with Spain (headed by young Queen Isabella, played by Anna Paquin who has a small monologue); Jeremy Northam's judge in the second trial is nervous but trying to appear confident; David Paymer's Secretary John Forsyth is ignorant; and Pete Postlethwaite's prosecuting attorney is stubborn. And for "comic relief," look to Austin Pendleton as a Professor who's forte is African languages, who stutters just as much as he usually does, and to the same effect (I love that guy).

As for Djumon Hounsou, he's very intense as Cinqué, showing him as sometimes pissed off, sometimes saddened, sometimes bewildered. Some say he should have received an Oscar nomination for his performance, but just remember that this year had so many strong performances that you can't acknowledge them all. Regardless, Hounsou has a strong film presence, one that attracts sympathy for his character.

But the one actor who REALLY walks away with his role is Anthony Hopkins, who DID get an Oscar nomination for his performance as the crotchety, somewhat bitter, and incredibly intelligent ex-President John Quincy Adams, who has the most characterization in the film, sometimes shown in scenes that he's not even in (one of my favorites was one where a bunch of Presidential advisors discussed how the only great thing about him was that his father was a great president). Hopkins not only emerges as a scene stealer in all of his scenes, but also gives one of the best courtroom speeches in any film. Sure, it goes on for 11 minutes, but it's so well done, so underempahsized by the music (the score is one of Williams' most overbearing), and so fascinating that I almost wanted to applaud afterwards. And I almost did.

What I really didn't feel like applauding after, or even really cheering over (though I did smile) was the final verdict. Sure, the music stirs up, people get pissed off, and many others dance in happiness (McConaughey jumps up and down like he was moshing), but for some odd reason I could not really feel that emotionally moved. Maybe it was because it was the third time this verdict had been read in the film. Maybe it was because the vedict wasn't monumental. It only affected a small group of people. In the beginning of the film, Van Buren replies to a message about the trial with a quick "There are over 100,000 slaves (or something) living in the U.S; why should I care about 40 (or so)?" Sure, he sounded cruel when he said it, but at least he was being honest.

Yet during the ending when they were showing close-ups of characters in the film and summing up their lives afterwards in short paragraphs, I couldn't help but feel moved for Cinqué when the title said that he returned to his land in Africa to find it destroyed and his family gone, maybe being captured into slavery. Why did it move me? Probably because it was personal. It affected one person. The film has a way of not getting to grand and not getting to personal with its message throughout. Maybe if it had picked one of these instead of lingering in moderation, it may have been great. Maybe it could have been almost as good as "Schindler's List."

Still, "Amistad" is educational, powerful, and intriguing throughout. The film's 2 1/2 hours are leisurely but never tedious, and there are so many great moments in the film...let me ammend that a bit: so many great real moments in the film, like clips of slaves been drowned on the slave ships by being tied to a bunch of rocks and pulled to the ocean floor, or a bunch of slaves in captivity and a newborn baby being held above them...things like this that make "Amistad" worth seeing. It suceeds on many levels, but doesn't suceed on being magnificent.

    MY RATING (out of 4): ***

Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews