Rosewood
2.5/4
Starring: Jon Voight, Ving Rhames, Michael Rooker, Esther Rolle, Bruce McGill, Elise Neal, Catherine Kellner, Loren Dean
Rated R for Violence and Some Sexuality
There is no doubt that the Rosewood massacre is a story that needs to be told. It is a tragic tale of a lie that destroyed a whole community and lead to the deaths of many (casualties vary wildly depending on which source you consult, anywhere from 8 to over 150). But is this the film to tell it? I don't think so.
The year is 1923. Rosewood is an almost all-black settlement that neighbors Sumner, a white town. The inhabitants are self-sufficient and happy; one person calls it paradise. But when a woman named Fannie Taylor (Kellner) is caught in a lie, she claims that a black man raped and beat her. That heats up tensions between the two settlements, and not a day goes by before mobs form and chaos ensues. There are two people who help the blacks flee for their lives: Mann (Rhames), a war vet turned drifter that had wandered into town shortly before the violence started, and John Wright (Voight), a white shopkeeper who lives in Rosewood.
"Rosewood" is a movie of extremes. There are many scenes, particularly in the second half, that really land. On the other hand, there are scenes that are badly written, miscalculated or simply don't work. The movie seems to be pulled into two different directions: a gut punch like "Schindler's List" (or more appropriately, "Hotel Rwanda," which also starred Don Cheadle) and a safe crowd pleaser. The push and pull of these two types of films (which, by the way, are not mutually exclusive) leads to some awkward scenes that hamper the movie's tenuous success.
Part of the reason for the film's shortcomings is that the script by Gregory Poirier, is at best half-baked and at worst, offensive. Characters are sketchily developed; only Wright, Sheriff Walker (Rooker), and Aunt Sarah (Rolle) come across as real people. Everyone else is a stick figure or less.
Of greater concern is how the script treats the black characters. Particularly in the first half, there are times when they seem like racist caricatures. They say things like "Yes suh" and "massa" and act like simpletons. Few of them are given much in the way of personality. Not only is it hurtful to the film from a storytelling perspective, it's more than a little uncomfortable watching it.
The acting varies. Jon Voight is terrific; he wants to mind his own business and hopes that things will blow over, but he quickly realizes that this is not the case. It is his conscience that propels him into action. Less successful is Ving Rhames. Rhames is known mainly for action movies like the "Mission: Impossible" movies and playing Marcellus Wallace in "Pulp Fiction." But Mann, a fictional character written for the film, doesn't really work. He's written as an action adventure hero, complete with a trench coat billowing behind him as he walks in front of an inferno. In a movie like this, that sort of thing is out of place. Rhames tries his hand at drama, but the actor's limitations are clearly evident in more than a few scenes; his romance with Scrappie (Neal) is undercooked, but the lovely Neal outacts him at every turn.
The best performances come from Michael Rooker, Esther Rolle, and Bruce McGill. Rooker, who has made a career out of playing intense characters, is good in a somewhat softer role as Walker. Walker is a racist, but he's not cold. He's trying to stop the bloodshed, but isn't strong enough to overcome the mob mentality (fueled by alcohol, of course). Esther Rolle, known primarily for playing Florida Evans on "Maude" and "Good Times," is exceptional as Aunt Sarah. She knows all too well what happens in situations like this ("Nigger is just another word for guilty," she sadly muses). Bruce McGill, a character actor of some note, is truly chilling as Duke Purdy, a drunken racist. His hatred of blacks is so ingrained that it has become a way of life for him. He forces his son, Emmett (Tristan Hook), to learn how to tie a noose and to look upon a pile of corpses.
John Singleton become the youngest person to be nominated for the Best Director Oscar for his film "Boyz in the Hood." I haven't seen the film (although I do own it), but he does show that he has talent here. I liked how he set up the film; things aren't always in black and white (no pun intended). Not every white person, apart from Wright, hates black people (Aunt Esther is beloved by many in Sumner), and not every black person is likable (Sylvester, played by Don Cheadle, is stubborn and abraisive). He ably sets up the situation that allows this massacre to happen. But there are things that he does, or in one case, does not do, that are questionable. For once, the initial scenes of the massacre are underdeveloped. For example, we only see Sylvester's house get attacked; everything else, including the fates of many townspeople and their homes, happens off screen. The result is a feeling that something was left on the cutting room floor. Then there are standard action movie cliches that surface (firing two guns at once, people returning from the dead, etc) that don't fit in this kind of a movie.
Can I recommend the film? It's a difficult question. There are some things in this film that are top-notch, but it has some big problems. Part of me wants to say yes, but I think that all in all, the film is too troubled to recommend.
Starring: Jon Voight, Ving Rhames, Michael Rooker, Esther Rolle, Bruce McGill, Elise Neal, Catherine Kellner, Loren Dean
Rated R for Violence and Some Sexuality
There is no doubt that the Rosewood massacre is a story that needs to be told. It is a tragic tale of a lie that destroyed a whole community and lead to the deaths of many (casualties vary wildly depending on which source you consult, anywhere from 8 to over 150). But is this the film to tell it? I don't think so.
The year is 1923. Rosewood is an almost all-black settlement that neighbors Sumner, a white town. The inhabitants are self-sufficient and happy; one person calls it paradise. But when a woman named Fannie Taylor (Kellner) is caught in a lie, she claims that a black man raped and beat her. That heats up tensions between the two settlements, and not a day goes by before mobs form and chaos ensues. There are two people who help the blacks flee for their lives: Mann (Rhames), a war vet turned drifter that had wandered into town shortly before the violence started, and John Wright (Voight), a white shopkeeper who lives in Rosewood.
"Rosewood" is a movie of extremes. There are many scenes, particularly in the second half, that really land. On the other hand, there are scenes that are badly written, miscalculated or simply don't work. The movie seems to be pulled into two different directions: a gut punch like "Schindler's List" (or more appropriately, "Hotel Rwanda," which also starred Don Cheadle) and a safe crowd pleaser. The push and pull of these two types of films (which, by the way, are not mutually exclusive) leads to some awkward scenes that hamper the movie's tenuous success.
Part of the reason for the film's shortcomings is that the script by Gregory Poirier, is at best half-baked and at worst, offensive. Characters are sketchily developed; only Wright, Sheriff Walker (Rooker), and Aunt Sarah (Rolle) come across as real people. Everyone else is a stick figure or less.
Of greater concern is how the script treats the black characters. Particularly in the first half, there are times when they seem like racist caricatures. They say things like "Yes suh" and "massa" and act like simpletons. Few of them are given much in the way of personality. Not only is it hurtful to the film from a storytelling perspective, it's more than a little uncomfortable watching it.
The acting varies. Jon Voight is terrific; he wants to mind his own business and hopes that things will blow over, but he quickly realizes that this is not the case. It is his conscience that propels him into action. Less successful is Ving Rhames. Rhames is known mainly for action movies like the "Mission: Impossible" movies and playing Marcellus Wallace in "Pulp Fiction." But Mann, a fictional character written for the film, doesn't really work. He's written as an action adventure hero, complete with a trench coat billowing behind him as he walks in front of an inferno. In a movie like this, that sort of thing is out of place. Rhames tries his hand at drama, but the actor's limitations are clearly evident in more than a few scenes; his romance with Scrappie (Neal) is undercooked, but the lovely Neal outacts him at every turn.
The best performances come from Michael Rooker, Esther Rolle, and Bruce McGill. Rooker, who has made a career out of playing intense characters, is good in a somewhat softer role as Walker. Walker is a racist, but he's not cold. He's trying to stop the bloodshed, but isn't strong enough to overcome the mob mentality (fueled by alcohol, of course). Esther Rolle, known primarily for playing Florida Evans on "Maude" and "Good Times," is exceptional as Aunt Sarah. She knows all too well what happens in situations like this ("Nigger is just another word for guilty," she sadly muses). Bruce McGill, a character actor of some note, is truly chilling as Duke Purdy, a drunken racist. His hatred of blacks is so ingrained that it has become a way of life for him. He forces his son, Emmett (Tristan Hook), to learn how to tie a noose and to look upon a pile of corpses.
John Singleton become the youngest person to be nominated for the Best Director Oscar for his film "Boyz in the Hood." I haven't seen the film (although I do own it), but he does show that he has talent here. I liked how he set up the film; things aren't always in black and white (no pun intended). Not every white person, apart from Wright, hates black people (Aunt Esther is beloved by many in Sumner), and not every black person is likable (Sylvester, played by Don Cheadle, is stubborn and abraisive). He ably sets up the situation that allows this massacre to happen. But there are things that he does, or in one case, does not do, that are questionable. For once, the initial scenes of the massacre are underdeveloped. For example, we only see Sylvester's house get attacked; everything else, including the fates of many townspeople and their homes, happens off screen. The result is a feeling that something was left on the cutting room floor. Then there are standard action movie cliches that surface (firing two guns at once, people returning from the dead, etc) that don't fit in this kind of a movie.
Can I recommend the film? It's a difficult question. There are some things in this film that are top-notch, but it has some big problems. Part of me wants to say yes, but I think that all in all, the film is too troubled to recommend.
Comments
Post a Comment