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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.