Amistad (1997)

Hisotical fact over entertainment
Over the years since this film first came out it has received something of a love hate relationship with viewers. Amazon have provided their own review filled with the sneers and sarcasm that have resulted more from critics knee jerk pandering to the masses than serious critical review. Others have pushed the old "political correct" Motive behind the film (For anyone who doesn't know, political correct roughly translates as "Something I disagree with, usually something I deem to be either left wing regardless of whether it is or not)

What should not be taken for granted however is the level of emotion still felt by many African Americans regarding the trans Atlantic slave trade. I first watched this film at a cinema in the United States and can recall (I assume) a black American walking out during the film with tears in his eyes clearly emotionally distressed at what he was seeing (It was during the scene describing the trans Atlantic journey when many were whipped, beaten and the sick thrown overboard.

I seriously doubt however, that Spielburg under estimated the feelings of black Americans and while this film is certainly not of the quality of Schindler's List it certainly isn't ET. To make that kind of comparison is frankly absurd. My guess is Spielberg went for something based loosely on historical fact similar to Saving Private Ryan.

While the argument that the characters may well be one dimensional I assume a previous reviewer did not bother the watch the film before he reviewed it and declared it "politically correct" because the film clearly shows that Cinque was kidnapped by Africans and sold to Europeans.

Spielberg does try to show the diversity of ethnic groups such as Muslims and Animist, one man seems to be taken by Christianity (a convert no less in such harsh circumstances!) The men speak in different languages and at times are argumentative amongst themselves (A comparison can be made to the imprisonment of Jews during WW2 and the disputes that arose between Jews of various nationalities)

Speilburg tries hard. He shows that the Spanish and Portuguese were the main participants in the slave trade (The British admiral giving evidence and yes, Britian did send out ships to attack Spanish and Portuguese slave traders) The conflict within the United States itself regarding slavery and the divide between north and a south that still relied heavily on a slave work force.

Morgan Freedman provides us with the character of a black man born in the United States with no concept of slavery himself and no direct links with Africa. An abolishinsist non the less.

Yes, the film may be less than accurate in regards to specific events but I believe Speilburg was attempting to provide the viewer with an overview of what slavery was and the struggle against it.

Now More Relevant Than Ever Before
AMISTAD is as relevant today as it was when it first came out in 1997. In at least one respect it is now even more relevant.

As most viewers realize early in this film, it was not designed to provide audiences with pleasant entertainment. Rather, it is a kind of didactic drama, serving--like Euripides' ancient Greek play THE TROJAN WOMEN (415 B.C.E.) and the recent George Clooney film SYRIANA (2005)--both as a reminder of a nation's flawed past actions and as a plea to be better in the future. Insofar as racism and racial violence are still thriving in our country--often encouraged by some politicians and pundits in low places--AMISTAD's main message is still needed, and the film is still an effective means of awakening people to the injustice of granting some citizens a place of special privilege while other citizens are kept subordinate.

By a fluke of historical fate, however, this film can draw our attention to things that were not in the forefront of its makers' minds at that time. Viewing AMISTAD in the winter of 2008, I was struck by the repulsive actions of President Martin Van Buren, who hungered so strongly for a second term that he repeatedly tried to deny justice to the wronged men and women of the slave ship--even intervening to have their favorable verdict overturned by the Supreme Court (which at that time seemed to be stacked in his favor by a margin of 7 to 2). Do our presidents ever commit such immoral acts nowadays? Does anyone of any party doubt it? And do the members of our Supreme Court ever make their decisions on the basis of "party loyalty" despite what our laws and our Constitution may say to the contrary? Are we ever in danger of having a majority of such false justices making vital, life-altering decisions? Has such a thing happened within living memory? Does anyone of any party doubt this? Does anyone believe that President Van Buren was the very last president to try to manipulate matters as far as laws and the separation of our government's branches are concerned? If any of us disagree on the answers to these questions, it is only about the names of the guilty parties and/or the relative degrees of their guilt.

And yet, within this film we are shown that, on the issue of human rights and "the belief that all men are created equal," 8 of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court in Van Buren's day had the intelligence and integrity to vote to uphold what our Founding Fathers had promised our citizens and had stated about human beings everywhere. And while I found many other parts of this film deeply moving--the parts which had been scripted, directed, and acted to press my emotional buttons on the issues of slavery and the rights of all human beings--in my recent viewing of this film I was also very deeply moved by the sight of our nation's much criticized Supreme Court doing the right thing. In line with the other messages of the film, this suggests that our citizens have a right to expect AND a duty to demand no less from our present Supreme Court as well as from all future Supreme Courts.

The British politician Edmund Burke is supposed to have said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men [and good women] to do nothing." Although no one has ever been able to verify where or when he may have said this--or whether some other person said it who has been wrongly forgotten--it is still a valid maxim, one well worth remembering whenever we are tempted to let someone else do our thinking or fighting for us.

And now, coming down off my soapbox, here is one tiny piece of art trivia: the biblical illustrations shown in AMISTAD were done by a French artist named Gustav Doré. And although the main action of the film takes place between 1839 and 1841, Doré was not born until 1832, and his biblical illustrations were not published until 1865 in French Bibles--and were published three or four years later in English Bibles. Does this destroy any of the fabric of the film? No, of course not. Does it make me think any the less of this film? Certainly not. Its central message remains intact--and its new and unintended message about our presidents and our courts needing constant vigilance to keep them working properly is not affected in the least.

Great movie
Great movie

Painful scenes of the terrible treatment of our African brothers and sisters, and a sad reminder of the brutalities of slavery.