catesa Reviews

Mandingo (1975)

Of Course it Looks Like "Gross Exploitation" - It's a Movie About Exploitation!

[8/10 · 26 July 2021]

I'm curious if the critics who took a massive crap on this movie back in the day really knew anything about the history of slavery (looking at you, Ebert). One would think they would've applauded how real and unvarnished the writing/story is. Did they think that Onstott and Norman Wexler just invented forced breeding and pseudoscientific racism for the sake of shock? Also, this was a popular novel for years before the movie was made. What were all the nay-sayers expecting? Surely they kind of knew what they were getting into when they sat down to watch it.

I'll allow that a few things don't hold up well today: the acting is a little bit over the top sometimes (Susan George can be downright unbearable in some scenes), there's not really any historical evidence of Mandingo fighting, and I find the notion of any real "romance" between an enslaver and the enslaved to be more than a little stomach-churning. But pretty much everything else about this movie was accurate. If it makes you feel gross and horrified and outraged, maybe it's because - SHOCKER - slavery was gross and horrifying and outraging. How are you gonna trash the movie for showing you exactly what it said it was gonna show you? It's like going to see Star Wars and being pissed off that there's so much space travel going on.

As far as I know, with the exception of Goodbye Uncle Tom (talk about sleaze), this was the first time that the real, twisted logic of plantation life was ever shown on the screen. It wasn't watered down, it wasn't explained away, and we don't get to walk away with some happy ending to make us feel all warm and fuzzy. I figure the people who made this probably weren't primarily interested in showing the horrible realities of slavery, but whatever their motives, that's what they ended up doing, and they deserve credit for that.

Lastly, I have to tip my hat to whoever decided to get Muddy Waters for that theme song. It's hands-down the best part of the whole movie in my opinion.

Backbeat (1994)

The Beatles Deserve Better Than This

[3/10 · 14 May 2021]

Let me just go ahead and say what everyone else is thinking: what's wrong with just making an honest, unvarnished biopic about the Beatles? They're the biggest band of all time. They're the 20th Century in a nutshell. Doesn't that make their story worth telling on its own, without making us all wade through some distracting, artsy-fartsy angle? "Birth of The Beatles" tried to do it, but it looks like crap now, and they got too much of their info from Pete Best, who has the personality of cardboard and the brains of a bowl of oatmeal. "Nowhere Boy" was pretty good, but again, can't just make a movie about John Lennon getting into music, can we? Better throw in the old busted Oedipal legends for some extra flavor!

I get it. Most people going to the movies are not total rock music geeks, nor total dorks about The Beatles. Filmmakers and studios probably don't want your average Joe to get bored and walk out. But aren't The Beatles worth an honest examination?

Let's state some facts:

When the Beatles went to Hamburg in 1960, they were a bunch of dorky, green, naïve suburbanite kids with garbage equipment who had no idea what they were doing. They sucked.

Part of why they sucked was that their "genius" leader John Lennon decided they should have a bass player that didn't know how to play at all, just because he was a good-looking, pseudo-beatnik painter, and Lennon wanted his band to look artsy.

They got good because they played for hours, and hours, and hours in front of people. They learned how to perform, not just to play, but to entertain people. It was an old-school, vaudevillian, total immersion in showbusiness and stagecraft that most musicians today can't fathom. That experience is what transformed them from a bunch of moronic teenagers into the greatest rock band of all time, and seeing that education, that transformation unfold on screen could be magical.

But no, what seems to be more important is conjuring up this myth that Astrid Kirchherr and Stu Sutcliffe, who in reality were footnotes to the Beatles' story, drove an apparently sexually confused and perpetually pissed off John Lennon (and no one else, who was that other guy, "Paul" something?) to create the greatest musical act of the 60's because he was so bitter that he couldn't be as cool as/sleep with either of them.

Look, this Hamburg period in the Beatles' story is super-important. There's not a lot of tangible remnants of that period, it wasn't very well-documented. A lot of it has just passed into legend. And now, thanks to the dudes that made "Backbeat," this mythical, too-cool-for-school Beat Martyr Stu Sutcliffe is the focal point of the story, instead of Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison. That's not fair, and I hope one day that someone makes a movie about this subject and actually tells the truth. After all the hours those guys put in on those tiny, crappy stages, they deserve it.

Big Sur (2013)

When the "On the Road" Dream Turns into a Nightmare.

[8/10 · 1 December 2020]

I really like this movie a lot, if for no other reason than it shows how dark and paranoid alcoholism gets. I love the Beats, especially Kerouac, but it's a turbo-bummer how his life ended up, and "Big Sur" really nails how awful it is. Kerouac's story is a reminder that you only have ONE life. You only have ONE body and mind. For the most part, you only get ONE shot at relationships. You don't need to be plastered to be yourself.

If you can sift through the drunken self-hatred, there's still some good Beat nuggets in there: the Buddhist explorations, the meditation, the zest for life. It's a nice juxtaposition to Kerouac's paranoid state.

Big Sur is the Beat Dream gone bad.

On the Road (2012)

If You Haven't Read The Book, You Won't Get It. If You Have, You'll Be Disappointed

[6/10 · 6 April 2018]

Walter Salles's On The Road is so close to being incredible. Unfortunately, the few things that stand in its way are enough to leave a sour taste in my mouth. Firstly, this movie shows us a lot of debauchery without delving into the philosophy behind it. The Beats were all about the idea that there's this other America out there, this more visceral, more honest way to live besides the 9-to-5, wife-and-kids suburban existence. Granted, the quest for this "other, free, holy America" loses some of its profundity when the characters feel the need to be smashed out of their minds 24/7 to find it. But they were onto something more than just drunken banging and shoplifting.

The movie certainly delivers on conveying the Beats' lust for life, their sense of adventure. That feeling of excitement and ecstasy I get from the novel translates to the screen pretty well. Everything from the soundtrack to the lighting to the dirt under the actors' nails makes me wish I was there. Sam Riley is great at giving Sal some personality, which doesn't seem like it'd be the easiest thing to do. I was also surprised to find just how much I enjoyed the typically loathsome Kristen Stewart as Marylou. Tom Sturridge as Carlo is the crown jewel of the film for me; he's exactly how I imagine Ginsberg would have been at that age, and his lines and energy get the closest to the heart of what the beat generation was on about. Of course, the fact that one of the supporting characters carries the thing would imply that the lead was a sad, soul-crushing disappointment. And guess what!

In Kerouac's novel, Dean Moriarty is the embodiment of the Beat Generation - intensity, enthusiasm, humor, eccentricity. He squeezes every drop of joy and wisdom out of every experience in his life; there's profundity in every interaction he has. In the novel Dean is manic. Everything he says is an exclamation. Sal is in awe of his magnetism, his energy. He's almost other worldly. There's a force inside Dean so powerful that you think it's gonna explode up out of him any second. His spirit is the lynchpin of the entire story. This seemed to be completely lost on either Garrett Hedlund, or the casting director, neither of whom I assume bothered to read the book. Here, Dean is still speeding down the highway, drinking and rolling joints, talking about his "kicks"...but without any of the character's electricity. There's nothing special about Hedlund's Dean. He's just a caffeinated Sal. He's the center of the whole story, he's got great actors playing great characters all around him, and he's still an overwhelming letdown.

I don't recommend watching this before you read the book, lest it just seem like you're watching a bunch of losers getting drunk and jumping in and out of bed with each other. Mr. Hedlund seemed more interested in playing a rebellious rock star than a mesmerizing savant, and although he doesn't cause the ship to sink, it's definitely taking on water when it comes into port. Despite everyone else's best efforts, this only gets a 6 out of 10 for me.

American Graffiti (1973)

George Lucas's Original Masterpiece

[10/10 · 20 November 2017]

Like most people who weren't alive at the time this film was first released, I came to "American Graffiti" through "Star Wars." I first saw it on AMC or TCM or something as a kid, and mostly only remembered the awesome soundtrack until I watched it again recently.

It's interesting how much more of an impact this movie made seeing it in my 20's versus my early teens. It's not just that I couldn't appreciate the filmmaking or the writing at the time. I also couldn't appreciate just how perfectly this film captures the spirit of youth, because I hadn't lived it yet. Like "Star Wars", there's something strangely stirring about "American Graffiti". I've never had a movie blow the dust off of long-buried emotions like this one did. I grew up in an environment totally different from the characters, almost 50 years after this movie takes place. But therein lies Lucas's genius: there's something universal in American culture about the magic of your late teens in the summer; of driving through humid nights looking for trouble, looking for love, looking for anything to do. I felt that again for 2 hours - that same sense of invincibility, of endless possibility, of teenage libido and out-of-control hormones that my friends and I felt at age 17. This film put me right back there.

Consequently, there's a real bittersweet-ness to "American Graffiti." Because just like Milner, Curt, Steve are destined to discover, that sense of unlimited potential fades quickly. We're all forced to either embrace the future of "settling down" (Curt) or try in vain to hold on to the past (Milner). The movie is a lot less light-hearted and lot more sad seeing it as an adult. But even in that sadness there's real beauty, charm, and excitement. I daresay "American Graffiti" tops "Star Wars" as an observation of the (young American) human condition. I hope history will be kind to this film; it deserves just as much love as the rest of his work.

Great Balls of Fire! (1989)

Dumpster Fire of a Movie

[1/10 · 14 November 2017]

Shame on anybody who is trying to defend this absolute waste of studio money. Dennis Quaid - what happened, man? This movie sucks...real, real hard. The writing, the acting, the crappy lip-synching. I mean, is the story of Jerry Lee Lewis really worth telling? Ultra-fanatical bible belt redneck pianist marries his child cousin. Great - can I see a movie about someone interesting now? So sad that this is one of Trey Wilson's last acting jobs. That John Doe guy as Myra's dad was alright, though.

La Bamba (1987)

La Bob-a!

[5/10 · 14 November 2017]

I'm only giving this movie a 5 because it's all about Ritchie and his stupid music career when the whole story really ought to be about his super-cool big bro Bob Morales. I have no idea how true any of it is to Valens's actual life, but honestly it's probably better than the real story. You've got Bob, making his way through life, trying to get ahead, making his peace with a crappy family life, you're cheering for him all the way. But all the while you have to suffer through his loser lil' brother Ritchie, whining all about Donna and rock n' roll and whatnot. Who cares - what's Bob up to?

Oh that's right - constantly getting a hard time from everybody because he doesn't live up to their "precious Ritchie". WHY?! Just 'cause Bob likes to party and make some extra money selling nose clams?! A kid Ritchie's age needs an authority figure around, and Bob knew it; that's why he took Ritchie down to Tijuana for some T&A and booze so he could shed that puritan schoolboy BS and become a real rock n' roller. Get over it, Connie! He was trying to do Ritchie a favor! And that fight he started at Ritchie's gig at the VA hall only upped Ritchie's street cred (which he desperately needed, wearing cardigans and referring to his girlfriend as "kitten" and such).

Anyway, Ritchie gets an okay record deal, blows up, and leaves Bob back home hanging out to dry, as if his big brother never did anything good for him. Way to remember the little people, ya twerp! Then he and Tubby McWhite Lightnin get on a plane with Buddy Holly, an ACTUALLY legit songwriter and musician, and they all die. The thing that never made sense to me was how much Ritchie's death screwed Bob up. Why, man? He was the source of all your problems, sucking up to mom, never having a good time so it made you look bad for hittin' the hard stuff - all your problems are solved, dude! Get out there and live! Bob Morales is one of the greatest characters in all of cinema if you ask me.

He utters perhaps the greatest line ever written when Rosie tells him she's pregnant:

"It's not my first...or my last."

Yeah, Bob is awesome. Screw Ritchie, though. He takes up too much screen time.

The Buddy Holly Story (1978)

Busey is The Only Saving Grace (what does that tell you?)

[3/10 · 14 November 2017]

If Gary Busey is the best thing you've got going for your movie, do us all a favor and shut that ish down! I'll give the man his due - this really is Busey's best acting job ever. And the fact that the actors are actually playing (and do a really great job) is pretty cool. But those are really the only nice things I can say about this movie.

The obvious lack of effort to make this film the least bit historically accurate is disgusting. Yes, he played the Apollo. Yes, he went on a tour with mostly black artists. Yes, he married a Puerto Rican. "Research done! Let's just fill in the blanks with live performances and made-up conflict between him and his bandmates and parents and ex girlfriends and Nashville producers and blah, blah..." Gag me.

I'm just saying, it's not really fair to Buddy Holly and his survivors to have such blatant disrespect (or at best apathy) for the ACTUAL events of his life and career. His actual Crickets bandmates were really cool, nice guys, not drunken semi-racist morons. Buddy Holly's parents were extremely supportive and proud of his music. A huge part of Holly's actual story was his producer Norman Petty, who of course is completely left out of the thing. I shudder to think that this POS is gonna be some poor kid's introduction to a rock hero. But at least said poor kid will get a somewhat accurate reading of what his music was like.

You can find "The Real Buddy Holly Story" (a documentary put together by Paul McCartney after being outraged at how phony this movie is) on Youtube. I would watch that instead. It's kinda cheap-looking, but at least you can ACTUALLY learn something about Buddy Holly.

...you know, if you can bear to pass up a performance by master thespian Gary Busey.

Roots (2016)

Not Terrible, but The Original Is Still Better

[6/10 · 19 October 2017]

I want to start by saying, if you're a white person who dislikes this version of Roots because "there's no good white people," or "the Africans are too advanced," you're either a moron or a douchebag. There were no nice slaveowners, and West Africans were doing pretty well until the slave trade came along. Grow up.

When I heard back in 2013 that The History Channel was going to remake "Roots", my skin crawled. It seemed kind of blasphemous to do a remake of one of the most important cultural moments of the 20th century, not even 40 years after it aired. But I know some of the history in the original is certainly flawed, and it's important to re-tell this story. So sure! Let's give it a whirl!

I think this new version only outshines the original in a couple instances: The updates to Juffure and the portrayal of Mandinkan culture/clothes/housing is really cool to see. The inclusion of the internal West African slave trade is also really important. We know now that having Kunta and co. running around in loincloths in the woods and white men strolling through the jungle randomly kidnapping people didn't really happen. On the other hand, the original tale Alex Haley heard was that Kunta was out chopping wood to make a drum when he was taken - kinda weird that this was entirely omitted, but I suppose I can let that go if it means seeing a more accurate Juffure.

I also appreciated the removal of all those goofy sympathetic white characters. Anyone who knows the story behind the original miniseries knows those characters were created because ABC thought white people wouldn't tune in if there weren't some nice white guys sprinkled in to make them feel better. I think it's more important to drive home the overwhelming racism, violence, and brutality that permeated every part of that society; it's difficult for us today to grasp just how bad it was.

Aside from these two updates, I don't really think the new version improves on the original, nor is it accurate to the times. No doubt there were dignified, proud, sly slaves who could find ways around or out of the system (as Kunta's descendants do in the original), but let's be honest: Kunta killing his overseer and not immediately having his head cut off is ridiculous. Any kind of violent resistance to a white person would have been met with totally gratuitous cruelty on the part of the slave-owners. For most slaves there was little to no relief from the constant terror, violence, and depression that loomed day in and day out over the plantation. That's really what makes the history of slavery so heartbreaking. There wasn't much of a way out. Kizzy holding a knife to Tom Lea's throat, Chicken George just shooting Murray's son and walking off into the sunset is ridiculous, and it downplays the total brutality of the system. 99.9% of slaves never would've dared something like that. Most understood that there really were no opportunities for them to settle the score unless they were prepared for certain death.

To make a long story short, the new series is definitely more accurate when it comes to the Africa scenes and the middle passage. Once Kunta's in America, the original miniseries was far more accurate - not in terms of violence (there was a lot that couldn't get past the censors in 1977), but in terms of the slaves' attitudes and actions. We see fiddler with his backhanded compliments, Kizzy spitting into Missy Ann's water, Tom and the family setting a trap for Evan Brent; they get away with as much as they can without the master noticing, and that was fairly typical. I also think the original is far more emotionally gripping.

Lastly, as to be expected with something put out by The History Channel (Sorry - "History"), there's a bunch of time spent on unnecessarily working in historical events that could've been spent on the characters and the inner-workings of slavery. Having Kunta join the Ethiopian Regiment, or Chicken George at Ft. Pillow was not necessary at all, and it totally took me out of the story.

I could go on, but I won't. Check it out if you're a black history buff, but it doesn't hold a candle to the original for me.

12 Years a Slave (2013)

It Happened Whether You Want To Believe it or Not

[9/10 · 4 October 2017]

I can understand if this movie isn't some people's cup of tea. The way it's paced is a little jarring (although to me not "boring" as some have suggested). And I get that no one but the Marquis de Sade would enjoy watching so many scenes of harrowing brutality. Maybe you just don't find the subject matter interesting, or you like a different kind of storytelling. That's entirely valid.

But some of these reviews are downright offensive. Nothing is more irritating than reading reviews of white people who are pissy that "there are no good white people" in the film, or "we get it - all white people are bad, all black people are good." Yes, I know, it's uncomfortable to accept that slavery was that evil, that sadistic, and entirely motivated by race - BUT IT WAS. Even the "nicest" slave-owners were racist douchebags. It's a myth (started and perpetuated by racist confederate veterans, by the way) that slaves were treated as anything more than animals.

I'm glad that this movie is so graphic because judging from some of these reviews people need to be reminded that this wasn't just a few years of involuntary servitude for people. I say this as someone whose ancestors owned slaves 200 years ago - what is so difficult about admitting it was this bad? This attitude that "it wasn't so black and white" (pun intended) is a complete crock. White southerners viewed black people as inferior beings, semi-human, MERCHANDISE to do whatever they wished with. If you have a problem with honest history being depicted, then you're the problem, not the movie.

End rant. I personally think it's a beautiful film, and one that is obviously necessary in a time when some people want to believe the depicted events are exaggerated. Maybe that's because accepting the brutality and totality of our past crimes has implications for how we should behave moving forward, and people don't want to have to change their belief systems. But going down that rabbit-hole would take more words than this space allows.

Nowhere Boy (2009)

The Closest Beatle Movie To The Truth Yet...

[8/10 · 3 October 2017]

I am a total nut about The Beatles, particularly John Lennon, and particularly when he was young. In spite of a few character flaws (the occasional smacking around girlfriends, etc.), pre-Yoko Lennon was always my favorite Beatle, and frankly one of my personal heroes.

I went into this movie already thoroughly acquainted with the story of Lennon's upbringing, of Mimi vs. Julia, The Quarrymen, art college, etc. Having been burned by movies like "Backbeat" and "Birth of The Beatles", I was bracing myself for a barrage of misinformation, out-of-order chronology, and embarrassing rock n' roll clichés. All in all I was very pleasantly surprised. The attention to detail and historical accuracy was such a breath of fresh air after all the years of sub-par Beatle bio-flicks.

It was a joy to see how faithfully they re-created Mimi and George's house. They had John Lennon's actual childhood artwork and photos hanging around. They found an identical guitar to the one he first played in school, etc. But the main thing I wanted to write about are the characters: I was particularly happy to see the way Aunt Mimi was portrayed. She always gets a bad rep as this shrewd, cold, mean old lady, and it always bugs the crud out of me (actually, in the initial script she was written that way; McCartney and Yoko had to tell Sam Taylor-Wood it was unfair to her). She and Lennon were super-close; at odds sometimes, but they always had a deep love for one another.

However, it was a little distressing to me how poor Julia was treated. The movie makes her out to be some neglectful, childish strumpet who never bothered to know her son until he was almost grown. The truth is Julia and John saw each other during his childhood as often as circumstances allowed (albeit infrequently), and were very close in the years leading to her death. It doesn't seem as if the real Julia was as loose and out of control as the movie implies. I think it was more that her whimsy and eccentricity bothered straight-laced Mimi. Mimi allegedly got custody of John after ranting and raving to child services that her sister was "unfit to be a parent" and insisted on taking him. Given how old-fashioned Mimi was, there's a good chance that Julia's "hard living" was blown way out of proportion (ironically, there's some evidence that Mimi was having an affair with her student lodger, Michael - hypocrite, much?). By today's standards, their whole family situation isn't really that scandalous (*gasp*, "you sleep with someone you're not married to!"), but I suppose it was for then. Just some food for thought.

I was also a little rubbed that they had young Paul McCartney acting like John's teacher or something. He might've known more chords, or written a song or two, but he and Lennon were both relatively clueless when they began playing together. Lennon asking him "Why do you know so much?" - kinda lame considering that McCartney was pretty in awe of him too.

Lastly, the man, the myth, the legend himself: I think this movie hits closest to the mark on young Lennon's personality out of any film ever made about him. He was a complex guy, especially in his youth (before he was Mr. "Peace and Love"). I think the tough guy posturing was probably dead on. The unchecked confidence that just oozes from Aaron Johnson's pores really sells it. You get the sense that teenage Lennon is only bluffing his "dangerous troublemaker" bit, which was probably the case. I would've liked to have seen a little more of his sense of humor (the classic cheeky Lennon wit is missing a little bit). Although I appreciate the effort to also have him show some sensitivity, I think in this movie it's the wrong kind.

I think John could've been written a little friendlier, warmer, kinder. Despite his teddy boy image, he apparently could be a sweetheart (you know, when not mocking the disabled or swearing at old ladies). It's the mixture of that "I'm a badass" hardness and who he was underneath that make him such a fascinating character.

It's common knowledge that his family situation was something he was deeply embarrassed about, and that his mother's death was really hard on him, but young Lennon was also notorious for hiding any emotion that wasn't blind rage. I seriously doubt that he would've gotten into some screamy-crying emotional spat with Mimi and his mom. I mean, come on - punching out Paul, running out of the house crying like some whiny little brat? Where's the chilled-out, laid back sarcastic guy we all know and love? Lennon was plenty interesting enough on his own - no need to make him carry on like a soap star.

In the end, I have to keep in mind that it's only a movie, and compared to what's come before it I think it does a relatively wonderful job of showing what life was like for the young, pre "fab" Beatles; the history is pretty on the nuggets (it would've been cool to see Stu make an appearance, but you can't have everything), the writing and the acting are superb, and It's cool to see so much of Liverpool. Go watch it. Right now. Do it. Now.

Amistad (1997)

Good Movie for History Buffs - But It Draaaags

[8/10 · 2 October 2017]

I appreciate any movie that is willing to take an honest look at American slavery (I.E. not sugar-coat it with some revisionist "Gone With The Wind" BS), and if you're unfamiliar with the Amistad case, it's an interesting time in history. Anthony Hopkins's monologue at the climax is one of the best pieces of acting I've ever seen. My only rub is that all the courtroom stuff just seems to go on forever. I was a little disappointed that we saw so much of the white people arguing over the Africans and so little about the Africans themselves.

That being said, the middle passage scene is the most heart-wrenching, realistic depiction probably ever shot. You can really understand just how horrific the experience must've been.

Anyways, technically speaking, it's a great film. Check it out, but drink some coffee first, lest you fall asleep with all the courtroom jargon and "white savior" grandeur.

Birth of the Beatles (1979)

Good for '79; Doesn't Really Hold Up Now.

[4/10 · 25 September 2017]

I'll give this movie a 4 just on the basis that it's better than "Backbeat" (90's art-film hogwash about the bromance between John and Stu), and it gets a little bit of a pass for being the first movie to really tackle the beginnings of The Beatles.

BUT! There are still plenty of things about it that make my skin crawl. The actors look ten+ years older than the 20 year-old Beatles they're playing. Especially in the early scenes the guys act like wacky cartoon characters; sweet, goofy, ambitious young men with a dream in their hearts! In reality, the Hamburg-era, pre-Epstein Beatles were raunchy, groupie-screwing, foul-mouthed, drunken lunatics, Lennon especially. This movie kinda makes them out to be boy scouts (but again, in 1979, the full extent of their hedonism probably was still pretty unknown). Like a lot of other reviews have stated, Pete Best was the main historical consultant on this, so all the circumstances around his sacking should be taken with a grain of salt (listen to a pre-Ringo recording of The Beatles - Pete was a pretty horrible drummer).

I've said this about "Backbeat" too, but it should be noted that The Beatles were pretty notoriously terrible before they shipped off to Hamburg. I know they only had so much time to cram in a lot of info, but the film shows very little musical growth; we just have to pretend that they were amazing from the beginning.

Other things: in addition to a very polished, 1964-sounding Beatles on stage in Hamburg, there's also an overwhelmingly syrupy, dramatic score all over everything. They have Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison being a lot nicer to Pete and Stu than they allegedly were in real life (they gave Stu endless grief for being a crappy musician, and couldn't stand Pete Best's moody "bad boy" BS). Like in "Backbeat", Allan Williams, their first manager, is completely absent from the film. Brian Epstein is treated like a sensitive little toddler rather than the smooth, suave businessman he was.

I dunno, I always think the main issue with these Beatle movies is that the writers never actually know enough about The Beatles to accurately capture everyone's personality or the history. This is like watching...well, a mediocre TV movie. It makes the most badass rock band of all time look like they belong in a stupid after-school special. I recommend "Nowhere Boy" or "The Beatles Anthology," but this one's okay I guess, especially for how old it is.

Goodbye Uncle Tom (1971)

If This Movie Offends You, You Need A History Lesson

[7/10 · 15 September 2017]

I know there are a lot of people who absolutely loathe this film (granted, the thought of someone "loving" it is disturbing), but I think that anger is a little mis-directed. Should we be shocked and grossed out by it? Of course. But I don't think the point of "Goodbye Uncle Tom" is merely to make people queasy, as so many of these reviews suggest. One could certainly claim that this is nothing more than a smut film, but that's fairly reductionist considering how depraved American slavery actually was.

White Americans (particularly if you grew up in the south) have typically been taught a hyper-sanitized version of our slave-holding, racist history. Perhaps we find it offensive because we don't want to believe that it's accurate. No matter how cruel and disgusting it is, there is nothing shown in this movie that white Americans didn't actually do to black Americans (rape, brandings, castrations, torture, auctions, pseudo-scientific studies, etc) over and over for generations. These exact atrocities occurred in America for centuries. And as implied by all the smiling, sadistic slave owners and the happy-clappy score, very few white people thought there was anything wrong with it. It was accepted and encouraged. Of course we should be outraged, but how about at our ancestors rather than the guys that actually had the 'nads to show it?

My one real qualm with the film is that aside from the Nat Turner sequence at the end, there's very little representation of the resistance, resilience, and pride that so many African Americans maintained through these horrific years. The Kunta Kintes of the time are completely written out, although I recognize that including those stories might distract from the overall point of the film, which I assume is that the self-righteous, "Land of The Free" was actually a twisted, obscene hell hole for most of its existence. But Franco Prosperi also said in an interview that they wanted to show that "the black man was not aware of his situation. He had no sense of who and where he was," etc. They wanted to make a point of making the slaves look helpless and stupid, and it's not only inaccurate, it's lowkey racist.

I still recommend "Roots" for younger audiences, the squeamish, or if you're looking for the black side of the story. But if you can handle the on-screen degradation, the nudity, and the general nightmarish, hopeless state the film leaves you in, it is for my money the most accurate, most undiluted portrait of African-American slavery to ever have been made. But don't be mad at the film-makers. Be mad at the people whose acts inspired this movie.

P.S. I recommend the Italian version "Addio Zio Tom" over the American. It includes more about the civil rights movement and makes a little more sense (if you don't mind subtitles).