Skip to main content

What did you do to him?

Fruitvale Station
(2013)

Ryan Coogler’s debut is a laudably intentioned account of the events at Fruitvale BART station on New Year 2009, in which 22-year-old Oscar Grant III was fatally  shot by a police officer while under restraint. The injustice was greeted with quite understandable outrage, leading to protests and rioting. The majority of Rylan Coogler’s film is a low-key affair, however, tracing Oscar’s final fateful day and sketching in his background, family, and pressing concerns. Fruitvale Station really comes into its dramatic own depicting the lead-up to his death (deemed manslaughter by the judge), in which the police’s customary lack of restraint and racist behaviour are shown to be front and centre.


There is perhaps a lurking sense that this Sundance hit is built more as an awareness raising exercise more than a film one with clear sense of narrative. The result is equal part longueur and a sense that the audience is being led by the nose. Part of the interest is that there should be no “fateful” quality to Oscar’s last 24 hours. Things were going right for him, and things were going wrong. It shouldn’t need the attention seeking of glossier final day stories (Carlito’s Way, the last hour of Goodfellas), as the point is surely that this came out of the blue. To that extent, Coogler rather loads the deck in places.


Coogler chose to make the film because he wanted the audience to get to know Oscar, rather than his relevance being another news statistic. But one wonders if the actual video footage of the night seen at the beginning informs may not have been self-defeating. On the positive side it informs the loss, but it also carries a raw power that no dramatisation can begin to capture, to the extent that one wonders whether a documentary approach might have been more effective. The day itself is relatively uneventful, so informing the experience instils gravitas Fruitvale Station might otherwise lack.


Early on, I thought there might be a too-good-to-be-true presentation of Oscar, a loving son who comes to the aid of fish-frying girls in supermarkets (phoning his gran and asking her to give the customer a fish recipe!), so this seemed like a clever piece of misdirection when minutes later Oscar is caught in a heated exchange with his former employer about getting his job back. So too, the loving son making preparations for his mom’s (Octavia Spencer, outstanding) birthday is contrasted with his raging at her in prison a year earlier, when she tells him she will not be visiting him any more.


Yet, compiled against other inventions, this notional balance comes across as overtly manipulative. It’s as if Coogler was worried a more accurate portrayal of Oscar might somehow make what happened to him less condemnable or wrong. There’s the scene where Oscar tends a dying pit bull hit by a car, a rather clumsy metaphor by any standards, and another where he throws away his weed. His girlfriend (Melonie Diaz) later embraces him for his decision to go straight in spite of his having no fall back of a job. In the fiction of this piece, it seems highly unlikely he’d do this with rent due and having promised to help out his sister. Other moments (the impromptu final dance on the delayed train) are less problematic, if no more accurate to the real Oscar’s last day. Still, there is a sense of too much finessing.


The other scene of note in this regard is the coincidence with the supermarket fish girl (Katie, Ahna O’Reilly). She sees and calls to him on the train, which tips an ex-inmate to Oscar’s presence. It hearkens to the fateful twist of a fictional narrative (like The Great Escape’s “Good luck” scene) and distorts events into a classically ironic situation (if Oscar hadn’t helped someone he wouldn’t have died; and look how that same guy set up in a flashback, out to get him, finally does on his last night). On the other hand, the scene where Oscar talks to a guy, while their other halves are let into an establishment to use the bathroom, may be yet another where Oscar is shown to be a jolly decent chap, but it strikes the right balance between reflective and tragic; possibilities ahead, and paths that might have been taken.


Whatever his failings as a screenwriter, Coogler has managed to get the best from his cast. Jordan is such a sensitive actor (as The Wire showed) that he perhaps can’t help but over-emphasise Oscar’s best qualities, but he also embraces his rage. Diaz is similarly excellent as the long-suffering girlfriend. Kevin Durand’s cameo as a thuggish, racist cop is typically strong.


Fruitvale Station received a host of plaudits on release, taking the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance and Best First Film in Un Certain Regard at Cannes. It also attracted additional attention through being released in the same period as the trial of George Zimmerman for the Trayvon Martin shooting. There, the shooter also received the benefit of the doubt. In Oscar’s case it appears one of his friends did indeed confirm the policeman (who served 11 months) said he was intending to tase him.


Reviews such as Forbes’ take the film to task for treading lightly with the truth. While I’m not one for suggesting a fiction film is bound to show fidelity to the facts to be valid, it does make its case less potent here when it is easy to point out subversions or omissions and when – set up as this is with actual footage – most viewers have been led to think this is the unvarnished. But I’d disagree that Coogler simply puts a halo on his protagonist; there’s a running emphasis on a man struggling with anger. More than that, the reviewer undermines his argument with loaded language such as “this low-level criminal did not deserve to have his life taken”.


Jordan is rapidly heading for next big thing status, with roles as Johnny Storm and Apollo Creed’s nipper arriving later this year. Coogler joins him on the latter project, although hopefully that’s not a signal he’ll end up making rather indistinct Hollywood fare (stand up, John Singleton). Fruitvale Station is a decent little film, issues of accuracy aside, bookended with scenes of incredible potency but rather floundering for material in between.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.