BLACKKKKLANSMAN

Warning: May contain spoilers

I went to see Blackkklansman (not sure about the number of k's in the name) expecting something outrageous and dark from Spike Lee and wasn't disappointed, although I encountered something different to what I was expecting.

Spike Lee has previously written and directed several movies in which he touches on racial inequalities in America. His most notorious one being (in my opinion) "Malcolm X" where he brought to life the controversial and in your face black activist of the 60's. I think by the way that this is also Denzel Washington's best performance of his career.

The story revolves around true events which took place in the 1.970's when Ron Stallworth became the first black policeman in Colorado Springs. This fact alone created a racial tension which was maintained throughout the film as not everyone in the police force was accepting of this change.

Ron Stallworht manages to get in touch, exclusively by phone, with the local KKK leader in the area, David Duke (played by Topher Grace) and gains his confidence to a degree that Duke wants to meet him thinking he's as white as himself. When it was time to meet face to face the police needed a white man to play the role of Ron Stallworth and assign the mission to Flip Zimmerman (played by Adam Driver) who happens to be Jewish. So, the plot couldn't get any better: a Jewish guy impersonating a black man who pretends to be white in front of a KKK leader. 

This is in summary the plot. Spike Lee took several liberties including making the policeman impersonating Stallworth being Jewish, which he wasn't. Do we forgive him for doing so? I don't know if I could. Granted, when I saw the movie I thought this was hilarious but, why call it a true story then?  Fact changing for "artistic reasons" has always annoyed me. Lee also included a change in the timeline, placing the film in 1972 instead of 1979. I guess he badly wanted afros in the movie. Also, and probably more controversial, was the inclusion of a bombing which is totally unrelated to the real story. Dramatic effect? This was a totally fictionalized movie with a few specks of reality included. I would have thought better of the film had this been labeled as fiction.

During the development part of the film Stallworth meets Patrice Dumas, a Black Power activist who hates cops and calls them "pigs" as any self respecting activist in the 60's did. Stallworth is a cop and decides to hide this from his beloved Patrice.

The story unravels and of course it all blows out during a KKK convention leading to the inevitable arrest of the KKK leaders and a bombing (the one which never took place). Also, as you could imagine, Patrice finds out Ron is a pig and breaks out with him only to get together at the end like in any romantic comedy.

This is the trick: When I saw the movie I didn't know any of these facts and accepted them as real. This made me enjoy this film due to the incredible story; a brilliant script; a perfect combination of humor and drama and great performances by John David Washington as Ron Stallworth and Adam Driver as Flip Zimmerman.

Spike Lee manages to combine all these elements to make a highly enjoyable movie of a different kind. Anti-racism propaganda filled with great jokes and high drama, as opposed to his "Malcolm X" which was a powerful no holds barred attack on racism in America.

So, in the end, I recommend this movie for it's unique approach to the awareness of racial issues in America. This is, if you don't have an issue with fact-twisting.

This is, at least, my opinion. And I might be wrong.

BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY - WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN

Before I start I’d like to clarify something. I’m a 70’s rock fan hence a Queen fan. I also place Mercury as one of the top 3 lead singers of all time and I have no doubt he’s the best front man I’ve ever seen.

Given the above, I was excited to see the movie as soon as it was premiered in Melbourne. Just from the trailers you could see that Rami Malek would be perfect for the role (something that landed on him after Sasha Baron-Cohen quit the role)

The movie was your typical biopic of a well know personality. It was not about Queen, it was about Freddie Mercury itself.

Even though I enjoyed the movie I didn’t find anything extraordinary about it other than Malek’s performance as Mercury. In fact the rest of the cast was somewhat bland, probably not because of the actors by because of the script itself. It seemed like Roger Taylor and Brian May got together with Bryan Singer (the Director) and Anthony McCarten (screen writer) and said: “OK let’s get someone who can play Freddie,” and once they found him they said: “OK now we need to write a story around it”.

This is a formula for success that has always worked in Hollywood. You find someone to portray a well known personality and you will sell tickets. It worked with Jamie Foxx (Ray Charles); Ben Kingsley (Ghandi); Eddie Redmayne (Stephen Hawking); Daniel Day Lewis (Lincoln) and so on. And don’t get me wrong, all of these guys did tremendous jobs but sometimes movies lose focus when they only revolve around one specific character.

As I said above, I liked the movie, but I feel it lacked depth. I was expecting the script would probe deep into Mercury’s troubled personal life; his difficulty to accept his sexual condition; his fight against addiction; his feelings of loneliness and more importantly his battle with AIDS and the relationship with his fellow band members. I think all those things were mentioned in a rush, barely scratching the surface of each one of these personal dramas.

Other movies like “Ray” went deep into the psyche of the main character, exploring the origin of their traumas and how they battled against them. I couldn’t find much of this in here. I felt like watching a documentary with a very good actor.

So, besides the superb performance by Rami Malek, who has deserved every one of the awards he’s received this season, and the sound, I couldn’t find anything else to like in particular.

And there’s the issue of the historical inaccuracies. All biopics slightly modify facts for dramatic reasons or to enhance aspects of the life of the characters but in this case they changed many facts that were relevant to the story. In the movie, Mercury confesses to the band that he has AIDS just before the Live Aid Concert in 1985. This isn’t correct. Mercury was diagnosed with AIDS in 1987, two years after Live Aid. In the movie they make it look like Mercury approached Taylor and May by chance after a concert when their lead singer had left and offered to sing for their band. In reality Mercury had been a roommate of May for quite a while and knew them well before this incident. In another scene Mercury announces that he will be recording solo albums away from Queen to which Taylor and May take offense. In real life Roger Taylor had already recorded solo albums before Mercury as they had an arrangement to do solo work while still with the band.

In summary, an entertaining movie with a master performance, but it left me wanting more. I think it was a lost opportunity to dissect the personality of one of the greatest entertainers of the 20^th Century.

This is, at least, my opinion. And I might be wrong.