For me, this sounded like a film that was going to be an incredibly one-sided story with no subtlety in it whatsoever. With all the discussions from last years Oscars being labelled as 'white-washing', this film to me felt like a response to that, and they are expecting to get some recognition in the awards season, whether they deserve it or not. That therefore made me apprehensive to go and see it.
After seeing the trailer, I saw some promise in terms of its film-making. That being said, the in-your-face content was noticeable.
After weighing up everything else, I felt it was right to see it and make my own assumption of it and that I should never separate art from the artists involved.
In the end, I am sort of glad I did. It is always to criticize a film portraying a topic that you pretty much have to tread carefully. But I feel I am confident in giving the review it deserves.
I must mention that it is the directorial debut for Nate Parker, who also stars as the main character. Also, while it is billing itself as a true story, it is using that term loosely. There is little information on the events or characters the film is portraying. So there is a lot of gaps to fill, and Parker does not hold up on what is left for the imagination.
The imagery is most certainly strong, powerful, graphic, and at times gory. There were times where I could see some violent moments feeling gratuitous. But most of it seemed to mean something to the story, as the tone was pretty strong anyway.
There is some really nice cinematography throughout, with many well constructed haunting images. But there were some oddly timed metaphorical imagery, that while it being shot well, did not seem to make as much sense as I felt it was trying to.
As for the story, the first two acts are developed well, I enjoyed the performances and where it was going. However the third act seems to take a major shift in tone with the story and the motives of the characters. That putt me off as I felt the final third was an unrated-version of the story I was just watching.
The performances on the whole very good and realistic. I have to give my due to Nate Parker. You can totally see the passion in this project within the performance. It is consistently strong and carries the film well to make the overall experience worthwhile.
I was really surprised to Armie Hammer in this. Despite all the coverage I have been reading and hearing, his name never seemed to crop up anywhere. His performance was pretty good. I felt I connected well with his on-screen partnership with Parker's character.
It was great to see Jackie Earle Hayley play a disgusting character as he has done that really well in the past. Other performances that were worth mentioning were the ones from Penelope Ann-Miller and Aja Naomi King.
It is still a good film with a lot of ambition, especially in the imagery. But I think it lacks of depth compared with something like '12 Years A Slave' will not make this as memorable. A directorial debut is never an easy one, and I think that was the main thing lacking in Parker's film.
Nevertheless, I think you should see it for the ambition, if you are interested in this particular subject, and if you want to know what all the fuss is about.
I think if it was done with a bit more experience behind the camera, then I think we would have been the seeing an Oscar worthy film that I think Parker and his team were aiming for.
It will probably do better then it would normally have done. It has been made at the right time, and all of its excitement with the studios going a bit nuts on wanting to fund this has given this the coverage that it needs. Fair to play to Parker and his crew, for a solid job.
Rating: 7/10
No comments:
Post a Comment