It's difficult to consider Steven Spielberg and out and out director in the sense he aims to entertain more so than he does inform, educate or combine his own vision(s) with films that revolve around themes and issues. I consider Spielberg an entertainer more so than I do a filmmaker, what else can you do with the man who, in Jaws, invented 'the blockbuster' and, in Star Wars and Indiana Jones, helped pioneer 'the franchise'? In Amistad, there is a film that revolves around several things at once: yes, it's clearly political but part of the problem is that it's so obviously so. Yes, it's an American period piece that needs help from incorporating many other nations from the era to create a story and yes, it does threaten to slip in and out of other genres too often.
But this is Spielberg as a filmmaker. His speciality is to deliver a smash-bang experience and in Amistad he does so while touching on certain subjects of ownership, human rights and political tensions but these come across in individual scenes or moments that impacted on me less-so because of the 'should-be-there' themes and more-so because they were sudden and perhaps out of place. It is easy to stun an audience; Hitchcock's 'Psycho' is a good example with the shower scene in particular: it's a film in 1960; a woman showers; someone comes in and suddenly we are bombarded with a scenario that jolts us. Amistad is like this with scenes of slaves in boat holds being fed and unneeded slaves being thrown over-board, only the film as a whole does not build or 'carry on' from these scenes like Psycho did with the shower scene, but merely uses them as shock tactics to evoke an emotional reaction (which they do) and to get us to feel more empathy for the slaves on trial.
So if Spielberg is more-so an entertainer, it would seem only natural for a Spielberg film to cover a vast array of genres or to cover a lot of ground in an epic tale of this and that. That said Amistad is a period piece; a courtroom drama; an historical tale; a biopic of some sorts; at times, a comedy and also a film that threatens to break out into the war genre when so many nations disagree and argue over what's right and wrong. Amistad is a film that does not do too many different nations too many favours. Most of the Americans in the film are kind and understanding but the slaves are presented as remaining hostile, as seen when during a hostile handshake and the shouting at another character through a courtroom window. But Spielberg doesn't have to take sides because this is based on true events so when the American high court judge is replaced, we see them to be presented as perhaps cheating and somewhat conniving, it shows Spielberg is not afraid of including details of that nature that do not flatter the government of the United States.
But then again the lead defendant is American and the reminder of America's victory over the British is accompanied with plenty of flag waving throughout. Also, the Spanish queen Isabella II, played by Anna Paquin, is shown in a less than flattering light although the feeling of immaturity and juxtaposition of situations between these slaves on trial facing death and young royalty in a far off nation with everything available to her works rather well. Then there is the clever inclusion or mentioning at least of Sierra Leone's capital named 'Freetown' and how the British renamed it so thus stopping incidences like the one that transpires in this film from ever happening.
But there are lots of basic things to be had out of Amistad, be it through the cast of specific actors and acting performances or whatever. For me, it was an interesting journey more than anything, through an historical subject (ie; the slave trade) that I do not know too much about. The film's premise is overshadowed by its actual unfolding of ideas and general plot, with the film playing an ace it establishes it has very early on and that is the power and knowledge of Anthony Hopkins' character named John Quincy Adams. Towards the end, the film is in search for a plot point and whilst the 'getting there' is eerie as well as horrific whenever told through the eyes of Cinque (Hounsou) in flashback mode, Adams' re-emergence and long, courtroom finale feels just as forced as it does uplifting.
If there's anything to get out of the film, it is the brutal establishment of a situation that could've escalated into something really disastrous; a series of scenes that disregard human life in a nasty manner; an intriguing and thought provoking court battle and a finale that wants to be reminiscent of 1991's JFK but doesn't quite make it. Amistad is brutal in some scenes, threatens unnecessarily to be humorous in others but maintains a balanced and interesting air throughout.
But this is Spielberg as a filmmaker. His speciality is to deliver a smash-bang experience and in Amistad he does so while touching on certain subjects of ownership, human rights and political tensions but these come across in individual scenes or moments that impacted on me less-so because of the 'should-be-there' themes and more-so because they were sudden and perhaps out of place. It is easy to stun an audience; Hitchcock's 'Psycho' is a good example with the shower scene in particular: it's a film in 1960; a woman showers; someone comes in and suddenly we are bombarded with a scenario that jolts us. Amistad is like this with scenes of slaves in boat holds being fed and unneeded slaves being thrown over-board, only the film as a whole does not build or 'carry on' from these scenes like Psycho did with the shower scene, but merely uses them as shock tactics to evoke an emotional reaction (which they do) and to get us to feel more empathy for the slaves on trial.
So if Spielberg is more-so an entertainer, it would seem only natural for a Spielberg film to cover a vast array of genres or to cover a lot of ground in an epic tale of this and that. That said Amistad is a period piece; a courtroom drama; an historical tale; a biopic of some sorts; at times, a comedy and also a film that threatens to break out into the war genre when so many nations disagree and argue over what's right and wrong. Amistad is a film that does not do too many different nations too many favours. Most of the Americans in the film are kind and understanding but the slaves are presented as remaining hostile, as seen when during a hostile handshake and the shouting at another character through a courtroom window. But Spielberg doesn't have to take sides because this is based on true events so when the American high court judge is replaced, we see them to be presented as perhaps cheating and somewhat conniving, it shows Spielberg is not afraid of including details of that nature that do not flatter the government of the United States.
But then again the lead defendant is American and the reminder of America's victory over the British is accompanied with plenty of flag waving throughout. Also, the Spanish queen Isabella II, played by Anna Paquin, is shown in a less than flattering light although the feeling of immaturity and juxtaposition of situations between these slaves on trial facing death and young royalty in a far off nation with everything available to her works rather well. Then there is the clever inclusion or mentioning at least of Sierra Leone's capital named 'Freetown' and how the British renamed it so thus stopping incidences like the one that transpires in this film from ever happening.
But there are lots of basic things to be had out of Amistad, be it through the cast of specific actors and acting performances or whatever. For me, it was an interesting journey more than anything, through an historical subject (ie; the slave trade) that I do not know too much about. The film's premise is overshadowed by its actual unfolding of ideas and general plot, with the film playing an ace it establishes it has very early on and that is the power and knowledge of Anthony Hopkins' character named John Quincy Adams. Towards the end, the film is in search for a plot point and whilst the 'getting there' is eerie as well as horrific whenever told through the eyes of Cinque (Hounsou) in flashback mode, Adams' re-emergence and long, courtroom finale feels just as forced as it does uplifting.
If there's anything to get out of the film, it is the brutal establishment of a situation that could've escalated into something really disastrous; a series of scenes that disregard human life in a nasty manner; an intriguing and thought provoking court battle and a finale that wants to be reminiscent of 1991's JFK but doesn't quite make it. Amistad is brutal in some scenes, threatens unnecessarily to be humorous in others but maintains a balanced and interesting air throughout.