Skip to main content

I'm just happy to be talking to a true white American.

BlacKkKlansman
(2018)

(SPOILERS) BlacKkKlansman illustrates, if nothing else, that Spike Lee is still entirely unable to judge when less is more. Only this time, his lack of discernment has come up roses, garnering him Best Picture and Director Oscar nominations. One can be cynical about this, crediting peer recognition to the picture’s socio-political currency rather than its quality, but then, wasn’t it ever thus with the Academy Awards? This really isa disappointing film, though, roundly failing to deliver on its you-couldn’t-make-it-up, must-see premise; one can only imagine how much more potent BlacKkKlansman might have been, had producer Jordan Peele opted to direct rather than bringing Lee on board. Peele is, after all, a dab hand at both comedy and drama; Lee’s credentials in the former are debatable, some might say negligible, and he hasn’t really proved himself in the latter in a decade or more.


Lee’s film (for which he shares a screenplay credit with Charlie Wachtel, David Rabinowitz and Kevin Willmott) is neither fish nor fowl, sprawling carelessly across various genre signposts without ever settling down for coherence’ sake. The accompanying pace and tone are typically languorous; he’s quite happy to hijack the proceedings for a sledgehammer sermon here or over-indulge period pop-cultural referencing there, neither to the overall benefit of the whole. 


In particular, Lee’s embrace of Blaxploitation iconography – explicitly discussed in a scene between undercover Colorado police Detective Ron Stallworth (John David Washington) and student union president and activist Patrice Dumas (Laura Harrier) – feels like it could have slipped out of an early Tarantino flick, or a straight-faced version of Undercover Brother. And yet, while there’s abundant potential for razor-sharp humour in the material – a black detective (by way of the telephone and his Jewish alter ego, Adam Driver’s Flip Zimmerman) goes undercover in the Klu Klux Klan – Lee’s approach is so heavy-handed that the material never comes close to striking a balance between its genre – police procedural/ thriller – trappings, its aspirations towards satire and the impulse to reduce everything to overt commentary. This is Spike Lee, so the latter wins every time.


Without internal tension to the fuel the proceedings, Flip’s immersion in the KKK’s racist invective quickly grows tedious; the impetus to shock the audience that people actually think this way can only pay off for a scene or two. Jasper Pääkkönen’s Felix is immediately suspicious of Flip, but the scenario rarely leads to genuine drama (an exception being the scene when he invites Flip to take a lie detector test). There’s also little actual detective work, presumably reflecting that the writers had to invent the third act – the actual historic case is acknowledged in passing, whereby the Klan attempted to position members in senior positions in NORAD – and what there is frequently feels ludicrously contrived. 


One never gets a sense that Lee is particularly engaged by or comfortable with the detective plotline, let alone the pulpier elements massaged onto it. Of which, ignoring historical accuracy is fine if it improves the storytelling; in this case, it only serves to detract from it. In particular, Lee delivers a succession of tonal missteps whereby elements of fact – Ron being assigned to protect David Duke, including the photo taken with him, although how he could possibly lose such a thing; it would be worth its weight in gold now – conflate with a contrived bomb plot and the blowing of Flip’s cover such that, rather than escalating tension, the results are more akin to letting the rest of the air out of an already sagging balloon.


Lee’s approach seems to be: great, I’ve got a dynamite story, now I can hang my bag of preachy predilections on it to the point that it collapses in on itself. Eventually, you realise he isn’t so much digressing from Stallworth’s story as, in his scheme of things, Stallworth is the digression.


So we have setting the scene in the most ponderous, obvious fashion, with Alec Baldwin spewing racist doctrine for a public information film, quickly followed by an excerpt from Gone with the Wind. At any point, Lee can’t resist this kind of overkill, such as the mesmerising effect of Kwame Ture’s (Corey Hawkins) words on his audience members, singled out in the darkness of the meeting room, as if they’re being touched by God. Later, Harry Belafonte recounts a horrific 1916 lynching, intercut with Flip being accepted into the Klan and watching The Birth of a Nation; this is Lee at his blunt-edged nadir, offering commentary that would stop the film dead in its tracks if it wasn’t gasping for air anyway. He’s preaching to the converted while simultaneously failing to come to grips with the story he’s (supposed to be) telling. And again, one’s led to conclude that it isn’t so much that he keeps getting distracted as that he never thought the story was especially interesting to begin with. Finally, to top it all off, he grafts Charlottesville footage on the back end, as if he was worried the Trump-Duke parallels weren’t explicit enough in the first place. Or that maybe his picture didn’t seem “current” enough.


He’s at least partly rescued by his leads, who are both very watchable; Washington is likeably self-assured – possibly verging on too laidback, although that fits the more humorous side of the movie – while Driver seems incapable of putting a foot wrong. Elsewhere, though, the performers are let down by the material. The beats of Ron’s relationship with Patrice are pure cliché, up to and including his confession that he’s a police officer. The KKK members are idiots or psychopaths, which may be accurate but allows for little tonal variation or narrative progression. Both Duke (Topher Grace, failing to make much impression) and Chief Bridges (one-time Robocop Robert John Burke) are explicitly paralleled for asserting that black people provably sound different to white people (the pronunciation of “are”), but the utterance has more impact the first time (ironically, Duke delivers it second). The scene where Ron reveals his race to Duke over the phone ought to have been both the comic and moral high point, but instead it feels laboured, trying too hard, and fizzles (“I’ll be here all week”); there’s no actual satire in BlacKkKlansman, just a filmmaker stumbling about in the dark knocking into things, hoping that if he repeats the same refrain over and over again, someone will notice.


Which they have, I guess. I think it’s fair to suggest BlacKkKlansman is a rank outsider for the top prize at the Oscars, but in its favour is that it’s in spectacularly average company, so anything’s possible. What it also has going for it is a crushing lack of subtlety, spoon-fed didacticism and scenes that probably have a rousing effect as soundbites even though they fail to add up to a coherent whole. Ideal Oscar material when you think about it. But actually, no, I don’t think it has a chance of winning the top prize. 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

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.

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.

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…

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

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.

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.

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

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There