Thurgood Marshall Story Is Powerful Reminder of Many Important Truths

This week I saw the film Marshall for the first time. The film, based on a true story, retells an early case legal case by Thurgood Marshall, the young attorney who would later become the first black man to serve on the Supreme Court. It's an impressive film, made all the more so by the acting of Chadwick Boseman, the star of Black Panther and an actor I definitely want to see again.

This summary by a reviewer on imdb.com expresses my take on the film as well.:
This enjoyable and inspiring movie is a worthy contribution to the courtroom movie genre. It memorializes the great Thurgood Marshall (who later won Brown v. Bd. of Education and sat on the Supreme Court). The film brings to life a forgotten rape case in Connecticut that Marshall tried early in his career when he was the solo staff lawyer at the NAACP. The story focuses on the plight of a black man accused of raping a white woman and it highlights issues of racism in the courtroom and on the streets. The movie recalls the classic films "To Kill a Mockingbird" (which also involved a black on white rape case) and "Anatomy of a Murder" (which also involved sexual issues and in which--like many real trials--we're never sure just what actually happened and who is telling the truth). The writing is sharp and witty and the acting and direction are great. Particularly strong is the emerging partnership and friendship of Marshall and the local lawyer, Sam Friedman, who had never tried a criminal case and thought he would just sit next to Marshall during the trial and do nothing. But the judge forces Friedman to conduct the trial with Marshall serving as his adviser--and he rises to the occasion.

Here's an excerpt from another imd.com review:
The actors in this intelligent film are all first rate and believable in their roles. Film is strong in mystery and suspense. The film is part of history but very entertaining from start to finish. It's an uplifting and positive film for everyone to enjoy. There are great believable interpersonal relationships. The film is high quality production including the music score. There is no detail that was spared. Plenty of great symbolism in the film for example the images in wall frame pictures in court room. I do expect actor and/or actress and other film awards in the future. Marshall 2017 is a must see film.

I only later realized that I had seen Boseman before on the screen. He played the role of Jackie Robinson in the film 42. I predict him to be the next Denzel Washington, a serious actor who will leave a legacy. He's well on his way.

One feature of the film, which takes place around 1940, is the reminder that blacks were not the only people discriminated against. Jews were not permitted into certain establishments, country clubs, etc. You may recall Jack Nicholson in the film Chinatown asking if the nursing home accepted Jews.

Near the end of the film, the prosecuting attorney tries to work a plea bargain with Sam, the attorney forced by circumstances to defend this black man charged with rape and attempted murder of a white woman. Friedman's response is one of many great lines in the film.

Loren Willis: "I thought Jews were supposed to be smart. You sound just like the Negro."
Sam Friedman: "That's the greatest compliment you could have given me."

In the closing arguments, as Sam trickled drops of ink into a glass of water, I thought of Perry Mason's manner of making vivid a point he wished to get across to the jury. And though we never saw the discussion that took place when the jury deliberated, I imagined the Henry Fonda film 12 Angry Men, and how what appears an open and shut case can become altogether other when honest dialogue occurs.

The DVD is available on Netflix. It comes with my highest recommendation.

Related Links
Marshall @ imdb.com
Emmett Till

Recalling the Power of Clint Eastwood's Invictus

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED 22 JUNE 2010

Last night watched the film Invictus, the remarkable true story of South Africa’s 1995 capture of the Rugby World Cup, directed by Clint Eastwood. This really is a wonderful story with impressive performances, starring Matt Damon as team captain Francois Pienaar and Morgan Freeman as the irrepressible Nelson Mandela.

Kudos to Clint Eastwood for the stories he has been bringing to the screen in recent years. This one is again an inspired piece of work and shows that he has learned well the craft of storytelling in film. I don’t believe we as Americans fully appreciate the impact and power of Nelson Mandela’s life achievements, not only in bringing down apartheid but in becoming the elected president who united this wounded and torn country.

This would be a great film if for no other reason than to introduce more Americans to the power of poetry to inspire the soul. For it was the nineteenth century Henley poem Invictus from which Nelson Mandela derived the inner strength to overcome those who imprisoned him for 25 years and hard labor.

Invictus
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gait,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

If my comments above fail to persuade you to see the film, perhaps this excerpt from an imdb.com movie review will help.

As a South African who saw this film on Friday morning, I can tell you you the entertaining, inspiring and enjoyable "Invictus" exceeded all my expectations.

It really is a true story of epic proportions yet it's told with an intimate feel, and it is at least 98% accurate to the events of the time. Clint gets all the big details and so many of the little details right, but he never goes over the top. He directs with minimum fuss and achieves maximum effect, just letting the powerful story unfold without getting in its way.

I watched the 1995 Rugby World Cup and saw Madiba come out in the Springbok jersey. It was a wondrous sight. And when Joel Stransky slotted that drop kick over in the dying minutes and the Boks won, I wept and cheered along with everyone else. After the match millions of South African - of all races - celebrated. It was an amazing time. It was the birth of the "Rainbow Nation". Nelson Mandela is the greatest and most beloved of all South Africans. The man is a living legend, but so human and real. When he was President he brought hope to all South Africans, white and black. We, in my country, will never stop loving this incredible man. Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman did South Africa and our beloved Madiba proud. Francois Pienaar is also an amazing South African, an intelligent, big-hearted rugby played who always lead by example, and Matt Damon's performance as him was superb. I was glued to the screen for every second of the film's running time (I didn't even move from my seat until the final credit rolled and the house lights came on), and I was moved to tears on several occasions. The final scene was especially touching.

My only question at this point is, what will it take to unite our own country’s mix of races and ideologies? Politicians run for office with this pledge but we're more divided than ever. Perhaps this is what the Olympics is intended to be about to some extent?

In the meantime, rent the film. It's a good one. Thank you Clint, Morgan, Matt and crew. And thank you Mr. Mandela for your vision and fortitude. You've held up a light against the darkness.

Pollock: A Film About Artistic Process

This year the Duluth Art Institute is once again sponsoring a film series featuring art-themed films at the Zinema here in Duluth. Saturday we saw Pollock, the Ed Harris feature film that was released to the big screen in 2000. As in the past, a local "expert" gave a preview of the film and facilitated a discussion afterwards. This week's facilitator was Dr. Nathan Carroll, professor of communication, theater and art at the College of St. Scholastica.

Amber White of the Art Institute welcomed us and reminded the audience about upcoming events, which you can check out here at their website. A highlight for me will be the Community Forum at the Underground on Wednesday evening, 5:30 p.m.

After Dr. Carroll was introduced, he briefly made several remarks to put the film in perspective. Ed Harris, the central character in the film and its director, grew up in New Jersey and has performed in a lot of great films. He met his wife Amy Madigan in the Sally Field film Places in the Heart. Madigan plays Peggy Guggenheim in this film. Marcia Gay Harden plays the longsuffering Lee Krasner, Pollock's partner and wife.

Ed Harris took an interest in making the film when a friend told him he looked like Jackson Pollock. Harris proceeded to read Pollock's biography, becoming acquainted with Pollock the drunk and Pollock the painter. His aim was to focus on the artistic process itself more than the source of Pollock's demons. "We don't have to like the artist to appreciate the art," he stated. This question is at the heart of many discussions about art, though.

* * * *

The film itself tells the story of Jackson Pollock's drivenness to produce art important enough to be noticed. It begins with a major art opening after Pollock has been featured in Life Magazine. He's "made it" to the big time. And then we flashback to 1941, the struggling artist in his New York apartment, striving not only to survive as an artist but also to gain recognition for his work. (He is the youngest of five brothers and not drafted to fight in the new war because he is 4F.)

When Lee Krasner enters his life his fortunes begin to change. His abstract expressionism begins to get noticed. Unfortunately, he is severely alcoholic and gives the appearance of being a manic depressive. As Dr. Carroll noted, "It's a pretty intense little film."

Pollock, the film,  conveys a number of key themes. One of these is the new challenges fame can introduce into a life. He craved attention for his work, but once he got it he didn't know what to do with it.

Like many such films Hollywood seems to enjoy recreating moments that have been documented in Life or other media. The Aviator, with Leonardo DiCaprio re-living Howard Hughes, comes to mind. I remember seeing the old Life magazine spread that featured Pollock. In another lace Harris re-enacts making Hans Namuth's attempt to capture Pollock's painting technique to document it and share with the wider world.

In the discussion afterwards one woman noted how Hollywood frequently presents artists as troubled human beings, giving the impression that madness is almost an essential feature in great artists. I wrote a blog post about this based on a quote from Dorothea Brande's Becoming A Writer (1934). She wrote, "The picture of the artist as a monster made up of one part vain child, one part suffering martyr and one part boulevardier is a legacy to us from the last century, and a remarkably embarrassing inheritance. There is an earlier and healthier idea of the artist than that, the idea of the genius as a man more versatile, more sympathetic, more studious than his fellows, more catholic in his tastes, less at the mercy of the ideas of the crowd."

A favorite pastime of mine is to read reviews on imdb.com in order to decide whether a film is worth my time, or afterwards to see what other thought about what I just experienced. Quite often the divergence of opinions is itself fascinating. In the case of Pollock that is exactly what you find. Remarks like "boring" and "I hated it from the beginning" are strange to me. I'd seen the film when it came out. It's not boring, especially if you've ever been serious about your art, whatever form that might take.

One reviewer at imdb.com stated that artists and the general public perhaps view this differently based on where they're coming from. This is probably the case with most films.

As for the artists reading this, the question preeminent in my mind after watching Pollock was the one regarding who we're doing art for. Is it for the approval of others? Or because we ourselves love the act of creation and want to see what will happen next? How important is it to have critics, or the general public, love your work? What is the ultimate aim of what were are striving for?

When all is said and done, Ed Harris can be commended for what he achieved in producing this film.