There are movies made with a high degree of cinematic finesse, with or (sometimes) without a substantial story or content, which cater to the very pleasure of movie watching. And then there are movies which, while made with at least some degree of that finesse (without which they could be well nigh unwatchable), rest on a compelling story which forces us to reassess our own beliefs while learning about things anew.
Steven Spielberg's 'Amistad' (1997) is the latter kind of movie. Helmed by a master craftsman, the movie's star cast itself is alluring, what with stellar performances by the likes of Anthony Hopkins, Morgan Freeman, Matthew McConaughey and the redoubtable Nigel Hawthorne (Sir Humphrey of the legendary 'Yes Minister' fame) among others, playing characters as distinguished as US President John Quincy Adams and the abolitionist Theodore Joadson.
But it's the historical significance of the movie's story which compels us to give it the due importance. It depicts an incident which caused an international dispute with another country (Spain) while bringing another great power (Britain) into play, brought an ex-President (John Quincy Adams) out of quasi-retirement to argue the case, and forced (at least a part of) America to crystalize its attitude to black slavery, perhaps also contributing to quickening the way to US Civil War in the bargain. All with one single 'commercial' dispute.
The story is simple enough. A shipful of African slaves mutiny aboard Spanish-owned ship Amistad near Cuba, killing their captors except two navigators to help chart the way back to Africa, are later overpowered by US forces and put on trial in US. They're supported during trial by the abolitionists Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Freeman), a former slave himself who plays no small part in convincing Adams (Hopkins) to argue the case, leading to the slaves being set free eventually by US Supreme Court.
We (especially those outside US) have been brought up to believe that it was the US Civil War which in the 1860s arose out of decisive efforts to stop black slavery, and that Martin Luther King a century later succeeded in bringing things to a head. Hence it's illuminating to learn that half a century back in early 19th century slavery had already been outlawed in (at least parts of) US, and prohibited by Great Britain, with treaties signed between the then great powers to that effect (though Spain and Portugal supposedly continued with illegal slavery on the sly).
It's the courtroom drama and the happenings around it which bring out the motivations and proclivities of different persona and groups of the day. The arguments extended on behalf of US prosecutors, Spanish and English lawyers, and the defence attorneys deal with such astounding aspects as whether the slaves were 'property' or human beings! And whether they were born in Africa (which apparently granted them full human rights) or on plantations (whereupon they became 'property')! The movie also depicts how, despite signing treaties covering slavery abolition, some powers like Spain and Portugal supported the abhorrent practice on economic grounds, with the then pre-teen Queen Isabella II of Spain even writing to the US President on the case. And how the then US President Martin Van Buren (Hawthorne), then running for re-election and dreading loss of Southern support, authorized filing of an appeal in US Supreme Court against the District Court judgment freeing the Africans, ironically delivered by a judge (Judge Coglin, played by Jeremy Northam) hand-picked by the Govt. after replacing the previous one during the trial.
As for the trial itself, Roger Baldwin (McConaughy) is shown to have argued the case very competently at District Court, even sleuthing around the ship La Amistad and finding evidence that the slaves were brought from Africa on Portuguese ship Tecora. But it's Adam's concluding speech to the SC bench, touching upon the division between Executive and Judiciary and upon the essence of US Constitution, which delivers the final blow in favour of the Africans. Before that, though, the legal questions posed to Adams during trial preparation by the Africans' putative leader Cinque (played by Djimon Housou, in a passionate and authentic performance) bring out the fact that intelligence and a sense of justice is innate in almost every human being, regardless of origin.
The story of the Africans' abduction (probably in Sierra Leone) and torture aboard Tecora on the transatlantic journey, including 50 slaves thrown overboard when provisions ran scarce, as recounted by Cinque, is heartrending, and evokes rightful revulsion against the abominable practice of slavery. As I'm currently reading the book 'Roots' (by Alex Haley) which also describes intolerable cruelty by slave masters, this movie brings the travails of slavery into sharp relief.
This is not a 'feel good' movie to be watched casually. While a treat to watch anyway, it evokes a degree of passionate reaction in the viewer as well. It's a chronicle of a saga, at a point in history.
Steven Spielberg's 'Amistad' (1997) is the latter kind of movie. Helmed by a master craftsman, the movie's star cast itself is alluring, what with stellar performances by the likes of Anthony Hopkins, Morgan Freeman, Matthew McConaughey and the redoubtable Nigel Hawthorne (Sir Humphrey of the legendary 'Yes Minister' fame) among others, playing characters as distinguished as US President John Quincy Adams and the abolitionist Theodore Joadson.
But it's the historical significance of the movie's story which compels us to give it the due importance. It depicts an incident which caused an international dispute with another country (Spain) while bringing another great power (Britain) into play, brought an ex-President (John Quincy Adams) out of quasi-retirement to argue the case, and forced (at least a part of) America to crystalize its attitude to black slavery, perhaps also contributing to quickening the way to US Civil War in the bargain. All with one single 'commercial' dispute.
The story is simple enough. A shipful of African slaves mutiny aboard Spanish-owned ship Amistad near Cuba, killing their captors except two navigators to help chart the way back to Africa, are later overpowered by US forces and put on trial in US. They're supported during trial by the abolitionists Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Freeman), a former slave himself who plays no small part in convincing Adams (Hopkins) to argue the case, leading to the slaves being set free eventually by US Supreme Court.
We (especially those outside US) have been brought up to believe that it was the US Civil War which in the 1860s arose out of decisive efforts to stop black slavery, and that Martin Luther King a century later succeeded in bringing things to a head. Hence it's illuminating to learn that half a century back in early 19th century slavery had already been outlawed in (at least parts of) US, and prohibited by Great Britain, with treaties signed between the then great powers to that effect (though Spain and Portugal supposedly continued with illegal slavery on the sly).
It's the courtroom drama and the happenings around it which bring out the motivations and proclivities of different persona and groups of the day. The arguments extended on behalf of US prosecutors, Spanish and English lawyers, and the defence attorneys deal with such astounding aspects as whether the slaves were 'property' or human beings! And whether they were born in Africa (which apparently granted them full human rights) or on plantations (whereupon they became 'property')! The movie also depicts how, despite signing treaties covering slavery abolition, some powers like Spain and Portugal supported the abhorrent practice on economic grounds, with the then pre-teen Queen Isabella II of Spain even writing to the US President on the case. And how the then US President Martin Van Buren (Hawthorne), then running for re-election and dreading loss of Southern support, authorized filing of an appeal in US Supreme Court against the District Court judgment freeing the Africans, ironically delivered by a judge (Judge Coglin, played by Jeremy Northam) hand-picked by the Govt. after replacing the previous one during the trial.
As for the trial itself, Roger Baldwin (McConaughy) is shown to have argued the case very competently at District Court, even sleuthing around the ship La Amistad and finding evidence that the slaves were brought from Africa on Portuguese ship Tecora. But it's Adam's concluding speech to the SC bench, touching upon the division between Executive and Judiciary and upon the essence of US Constitution, which delivers the final blow in favour of the Africans. Before that, though, the legal questions posed to Adams during trial preparation by the Africans' putative leader Cinque (played by Djimon Housou, in a passionate and authentic performance) bring out the fact that intelligence and a sense of justice is innate in almost every human being, regardless of origin.
The story of the Africans' abduction (probably in Sierra Leone) and torture aboard Tecora on the transatlantic journey, including 50 slaves thrown overboard when provisions ran scarce, as recounted by Cinque, is heartrending, and evokes rightful revulsion against the abominable practice of slavery. As I'm currently reading the book 'Roots' (by Alex Haley) which also describes intolerable cruelty by slave masters, this movie brings the travails of slavery into sharp relief.
This is not a 'feel good' movie to be watched casually. While a treat to watch anyway, it evokes a degree of passionate reaction in the viewer as well. It's a chronicle of a saga, at a point in history.
The whole subject of slavery in the US context is barbaric and as we are told, the Civil War did abolish this practice.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe slavery did continue in a smaller and less widespread basis.
The Civil Rights Movement of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., fought for and gave the African Americans the vote and also achieved desegregation of public places and public modes of transportation.
But what was given on one hand, was being slyly taken away on the other hand.
African Americans in many States cannot vote as they are convicted felons. In the USA if stats are to be believed, African Americans constitute 67% of all incarcerated people.
Further many States, draw their State voters maps in such a way that African American places of residences are put in the same voting sector. This prevents them being able to vote for all of the State seats. This system is called gerrymandering. I may not be explaining this very well.
The objective is to ensure that even if the African Americans vote, the impact will be negligible. And the white conservatives will continue to control the State Legislature.
This is a very big problem facing this country.
Thanks for your comments - very illuminating. I've always wondered why, despite a longer record of affirmative action, blacks in US haven't had the kind of electoral influence as Dalits in India, who're seen as a valuable vote back and wooed by all political parties willy nilly. This puts things in perspective.
Delete