Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Looking Closer

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
Amistad (1997)

Amistad (1997)

Last updated on: December 11, 2008 at 7:49 pm by Jeffrey Overstreet

Amistad (1997) 2008-12-11T19:49:47-07:00 Jeffrey Overstreet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A review by Jeffrey Overstreet.

∙

Director – Steven Spielberg; writer – David Franzoni; director of photography – Janusz Kaminski; editor – Michael Kahn; music – John Williams; production designer – Rick Carter; producers – Steven Spielberg, Debbie Allen and Colin Wilson. STARRING: Morgan Freeman (Joadson), Nigel Hawthorne (President Martin Van Buren), Anthony Hopkins (John Quincy Adams), Djimon Hounsou (Cinque), Matthew McConaughey (Baldwin), David Paymer (Secretary of State John Forsyth), Pete Postlethwaite (Holabird), Stellan Skarsgard (Tappan), Razaaq Adoti (Yamba), Abu Bakaar Fofanah (Fala) and Anna Paquin (Queen Isabella). Dreamworks SKG. 150 minutes. Rated R.

∙

It’s probably politically incorrect for me to do anything but praise Amistad. After all, it is one of the boldest cinematic portrayals of the plight of American slaves ever filmed. And it was directed by Steven Spielberg, who crafted such a memorable memorial to the victims of the Holocaust, and a gift to its survivors, with Schindler’s List.

And with such an impressive lineup of distinguished actors, surely we’re looking at a landmark cinematic event!

Oh, if only. Alas, many of the things that his previous historical epics, including the underrated Empire of the Sun, led us to expect from Spielberg seem to be missing this time around. Amistad feels strangely incomplete, and at times even airbrushed to be easier on the eyes.

The film’s strengths are many. Djimon Hounsou gives a promising breakthrough performance as Cinque, the African who rises to represent his fellow captives. The attention to historical detail is impressive. Courtroom scenes avoid Hollywood legal arena clichés.

And above all, there’s Anthony Hopkins. In his turn as former President John Quincy Adams, Hopkins lives up to his reputation as one of the big screen’s most compelling presences. Most audiences would flinch at the idea of a movie’s finale consisting of one long philosophy-heavy speech, but Hopkins, as the unsteady, deep-thinking, quirky master orator, makes every word count. He’s brilliant.

But neither Hounsou nor Hopkins are given the chance to carry the film the way Liam Neeson carried Schindler’s List. Hopkins’ appearances are fleeting, and Hounsou’s character feels too much like the Model Suffering African, without enough distinction in his character to command our attention.

The rest of the cast are less than brilliant, and some are miscast entirely. Matthew McConaughey is an especially unfortunate choice, playing the lawyer who seeks to help the slaves against all odds. McCounaughey doesn’t embarrass himself; he does his best with the material he’s given. But he’s only required to look determined and throw a couple of temper tantrums. He never really finds a character to inhabit.

Morgan Freeman looks like he was handed his lines, coached through his scenes (“Look solemn and stand in the back of the room, Morgan. Okay, now look deeply moved by what you’re watching. Now, smile.”), and then went home. Others — Nigel Hawthorne, Pete Postlethwaite, Anna Paquin, Stellan Skarsgard — are equally distinguished and equally underused. Why cast such important actors in such brief, bland parts?

Even Hounsou is the victim of bad scripting. In the first half, we see him get angry, yell a lot, and make his eyes very very big like an African Mel Gibson; then in the second act he reveals his story, his terrifying memories, and we learn about what he left behind and why the others respect him. But it always feels “representative” rather than specific.

The slaves remain an anonymous bunch from beginning to end, unlike the living personalities of the Jews in Schindler’s List. We’re expected to feel for them. Look at the atrocities they endured! Look at what a strange and disorienting world they find themselves trapped in! And indeed, their sufferings are great. But the same lessons could have been taught by a PBS documentary. One character informs the attorney that the winner in court will be the one who tells “the best story”. Spielberg should have taken that advice. Instead, he seems to be crafting a tool for classrooms instead of cinemas.

The screenplay gives so much attention to the legal complications of freeing the slaves that we don’t have time to develop more than mere sympathy for them. Hollywood’s master storyteller seemed confused about which story he was telling. He moves so fast and so frequently between different contexts that we never find our balance. More character development, please, Mr. Spielberg… even if it means a longer movie!

Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski brings alive scenes of the slaves’ escape from their chains on the nightmarish sea journey. In the opening minute of the film, sweat on a slave’s forehead glistens like stars in a night sky. But the courtroom scenes are filmed through a murky lens, so the Supreme Court members’ heads glow with silver halos while the rest of the room is drab and shadowed. It is an interesting approach, but dulls the drama of these scenes, making the figures look trapped in amber like the mosquito in Jurassic Park.

Worst of all is the pompous overbearing nature of John Williams’ soundtrack. It’s as if at the beginning of each scene he must announce “This is going to be rough! Hang on!” or “This is tragic! Get out your hankies!” He’s never been so unnecessarily melodramatic. Some silence would have been nice. Spielberg restrained him in Schindler’s List, and as a result the soundtrack was powerful, enhancing rather than dominating. But the final minutes of the film, as Spielberg directs an embarrassingly sentimental farewell accompanied byWilliams’ euphoric crescendo, are inappropriately reminiscent of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.

In spite of its flaws, Amistad will remain a notable film for two reasons.

First, for Anthony Hopkins’ climactic speech. It will ring in the memory long after the movie’s particulars are forgotten.

And second, for a surprising appreciation of the Gospel. In one profound scene, a slave browses the Bible and, from the pictures, follows the story of a holy man who suffered much, was executed, returned from the dead, and showed tormented souls the way to the kingdom of God. The slave finds hope in Jesus without having heard a single sermon. Through the rest of his personal sufferings, he notices the cross in things all around him, and it brings him a powerful hope. This is the most straightforward, understated, and powerful big-screen representation of the gospel in recent movie history.

And it’s the bravest decision Spielberg the Storyteller has made since Raiders of the Lost Ark, when he let human heroes fail while the Almighty saved the day.

Film Reviews

Previous Post

December 11, 2008

Hope for Where We're Going: An Interview with Louis Schwartzberg

Next Post

December 11, 2008 Anger Management (2003)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Blog Bloggers on "Through a Screen Darkly" Browser Coming Soon Endorsements Fiction Books Film Forum Film Reviews Inspirations Interviews Journal Kindlings Muse Movie buzz Music Reviews Non-Fiction Books radio Reviewers on "Through a Screen Darkly" The Auralia Thread Through a Screen Darkly Through a Screen Darkly - Bonus Materials Top 10 (or 20 or 100) lists Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 July 2003 May 2003 March 2003 September 1999

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many people did Jesus feed with five loaves of bread and two fish?

Select your answer to see how you score.

2,500 5,000 1,000 500