Amistad

Slavery is a subject that has had its fair share of art made about its ghastly history. Movies, in particular, with their high importance within American arts, have covered the topic many times from as early as the silent era. Amistad attempts to enter this arena with a somewhat fresh idea. This movie isn’t centered on the abhorrent realities of the life of a slave, it is a courtroom drama based on real events in which the idea of slavery is central to the facts of the case.

This creates an interesting mix, where the supposed saccharine tendencies of Spielberg rub up against the harsh realities of slavery, all within a narrative that wants to make the horrors of slavery palpable even though they aren’t, strictly speaking, the primary conflict of the story. In the end, I actually think this strange brew really works and I found the concoction an extremely powerful piece of cinema.

This isn’t the most famous movie in which Spielberg brings a historical tragedy to life, that would be Schindler’s List of course, but this movie still does an admirable job of bringing the horrors of the film’s core issue to light. Even though both films ultimately end in a place not totally enshrouded in nihilistic bleakness, I’ve always thought the criticisms of Spielberg as a fundamentally saccharine director are overstated when it comes to films like these. There is never a second in this film where you don’t feel the desperate frustration of the West Africans to be able to return to their homeland, and the use of the visuals of the slave trade, sparse as they may be, do plenty to reinforce the reality of those desires.

Of course, the West Africans are only part of the story, even if they are central to it. A good bit of the run time is also taken up with the American abolitionists and their lawyer(s) seeking to communicate and understand the West Africans, personified in Cinqué, their de facto leader, while they try to build the best version of their case. This case is then further complicated by the other interests at play, from the Spanish Royal Family, to a wishy-washy president, to greedy naval officers and traders who believe the “cargo” should rightfully be theirs. I found this stuff fairly compelling, especially the proceedings around the trials where cross-cultural understanding is slowly established and strengthened between the abolitionists and the slaves in order to build their case.

Some criticism of the film has centered around the fact that not enough importance is given to the slaves themselves, with too much focus on the lawyers. Some even call out, in particular, the feeling that the lawyers fall into the worst cliches of the white savior narrative. In both cases, I didn’t find myself convinced this critique was totally deserved. To me, the movie is more complex than that. It is about a combined effort between the two parties. It is about justified anger at the systems that enslave, from the slave traders who buy and sell people to the slow moving justice system that can often feel rather unjust. It is through these diverse perspectives in the movie we are allowed to see the whole much clearer. By the end of the movie, I was feeling intensely moved in a way that would not have necessarily hit as hard without these themes being brought to the fore.

On the other hand, my main complaint about the film is that it is too long. Despite being a half an hour shorter than Schindler’s List, this movie drags throughout the final act and so ends up feeling longer. While the surprise twist that the hard fought and vindicating court ruling is being appealed to the Supreme Court is necessary for historical accuracy, from a narrative perspective this fake out ending marks when the film begins to show signs it doesn’t know what it’s supposed to be anymore. We do get more of Cinqué, which is nice, and it brings back in John Quincy Adams, which justifies his cameos earlier in the film, but the actual substance of these scenes noodles about too much for my liking, only to culminate in an extremely drawn out speech by Adams for the Supreme Court that imagines itself one of the great monologues of film history but unfortunately only succeeds at being boring. This puttering to the ending really lets down the movie. Sure, I was moved by the film but more by the totality of what I’d experienced, not the meaningful impact of the finale. In fact, barring the denouement that offers us tidbits, both tragic and triumphant, about the consequences of the trial and the people who were involved, the last half an hour or so of the film is unbelievably dull and neither essential to the plot nor deeply resonant with the themes, making it entirely extraneous to film.

A compelling story of slavery, the justice system, the hard fought battles of abolitionists, and the complex political state of America just before the civil war, Amistad does an admirable job of bringing together all these disparate ideas and character perspectives by centering them on this one famous trial. The movie is emotionally powerful and its message of shared humanity clear. I just wish the ending wasn’t such a tacked on slog.

Would Recommend: If you are open to being moved by a story that is about slavery without necessarily being about slaves.

Would Not Recommend:: If strong finishes are important to your enjoyment of a movie.