Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm surprised no one has been talking about this film. Just got back from the theater. A wonderful film for those who like more serious topics in their films.
Chadwick Boseman is phenomenal. Not only do I admire the films he has been in, but he seems like a cool guy...down to earth, funny, fun, a little goofy in a good way. But here's what's important -- none of that is there when he is acting. He becomes the character more than many actors do.
Josh Gad is very good as the Jewish lawyer. Kate Hudson is very good as the woman claiming rape. Sterling Brown is wonderful as the wrongly accused "Negro". Jussie Smollett had a small role as Landston Hughes...too small to get much of a sense of his acting away from "Empire".
I haven't heard of this one, but you had me at Sterling K Brown. I'll have to check it out.
For those who have not heard of this film, it's about Thurgood Marshall, the first Black justice of the Supreme Court. However, this is about his younger years when he was the only lawyer working for the NAACP. Interestingly, Marshall is banned from speaking in court by a racist White judge, but make no mistake, the film belongs to Boseman.
My wife and I saw it last night and generally enjoyed it.
The elements of the trial itself appear to have been very accurately portrayed in the film, including Marshall's hectic schedule.
There were a couple of anachronisms that were kind of annoying. One was Marshall having a drink in a mixed-race low-end bar with a white woman coming on to him. That combination was not happening in 1941. Could there have have been a white woman tramping in a black bar? Yes...but the moment those two white men came in wearing wife-beaters and flanked Marshall, casual conversation would have come to a dead halt and everyone would have geared for trouble.
Another was the little girl with plans to become a fighter pilot. The Tuskegee Airmen wouldn't be flying for another two years, and "fighter pilot" itself didn't yet have the cache in civilian circles that it would have a decade later after tales of WWII exploits became commonly known.
The black women were notably very beautiful and long-haired by Caucasian standards, except for the stereotypical black Southern mother at the end.
Also, Jewish lawyers, the Communist Party, and the NAACP had been allied before, such as the case of the Scottsboro Boys a decade earlier. And Marshall was not the NAACP's only lawyer, but he was their top lawyer.
A point I was surprised they never raised in the defense: The allegation was that the man had raped the woman repeatedly, beat her, threatened her life at knifepoint, bound and gagged her, and took her to a bridge with the intention of throwing her to her death. The proscution claimed his brutality was so ferocious that she was afraid to scream from the floor of the rear seat of the car when the rapist was stopped by police.
But then in the testimony by the police, the rapist put her sealskin coat on her for the drive to the bridge and she was wearing it when thrown from the bridge. What?
Regarding the co-counsel, Samuel Friedman:
Quote:
When Marshall reached Greenwich, he was met by Samuel Friedman, a white attorney hired by the Bridgeport NAACP. A few years older than Marshall, Friedman had practiced law with his brother, Irwin, since the 1920s. Unassuming in his dark three-piece suit and matching bow tie, his short black hair neatly combed back, Friedman was developing a reputation as a tenacious advocate with a flair for courtroom drama.
My wife and I saw it last night and generally enjoyed it.
The elements of the trial itself appear to have been very accurately portrayed in the film, including Marshall's hectic schedule.
There were a couple of anachronisms that were kind of annoying. One was Marshall having a drink in a mixed-race low-end bar with a white woman coming on to him. That combination was not happening in 1941. Could there have have been a white woman tramping in a black bar? Yes...but the moment those two white men came in wearing wife-beaters and flanked Marshall, casual conversation would have come to a dead halt and everyone would have geared for trouble.
Another was the little girl with plans to become a fighter pilot. The Tuskegee Airmen wouldn't be flying for another two years, and "fighter pilot" itself didn't yet have the cache in civilian circles that it would have a decade later after tales of WWII exploits became commonly known.
The black women were notably very beautiful and long-haired by Caucasian standards, except for the stereotypical black Southern mother at the end.
Also, Jewish lawyers, the Communist Party, and the NAACP had been allied before, such as the case of the Scottsboro Boys a decade earlier. And Marshall was not the NAACP's only lawyer, but he was their top lawyer.
A point I was surprised they never raised in the defense: The allegation was that the man had raped the woman repeatedly, beat her, threatened her life at knifepoint, bound and gagged her, and took her to a bridge with the intention of throwing her to her death. The proscution claimed his brutality was so ferocious that she was afraid to scream from the floor of the rear seat of the car when the rapist was stopped by police.
But then in the testimony by the police, the rapist put her sealskin coat on her for the drive to the bridge and she was wearing it when thrown from the bridge. What?
Some good points, although there were so-called "black-and-tan dives" (or "black and tan saloons"), particularly in the North as early as the 1910s, and this film was in 1940. And this film took place in Connecticut. Harlem -- where Whites did frequently co-mingle in bars and nightclubs -- was only 50 miles away.
Some good points, although there were so-called "black-and-tan dives" (or "black and tan saloons"), particularly in the North as early as the 1910s, and this film was in 1940. And this film took place in Connecticut. Harlem -- where Whites did frequently co-mingle in bars and nightclubs -- was only 50 miles away.
Fifty miles makes a heck of a difference. Harlem was and is a black community and there could be the large saloons that would attract slumming whites. A place had to be large enough for a white person to enter without the music coming to a stop and all heads turning.
Something else I noted was that there was more real story about Friedman than about Marshall. We saw more of how the issue affected his life, his family, his community. We saw him go through the character metamorphosis required for a good story.
Marshall left the story exactly as he was when the story started. It was just "slice o' life" for Marshall, but a transformative story for Friedman.
There is another point I have somewhat (but not wholly) mixed feelings about: Thurgood Marshall was a quite light-skinned black man. All black people of the time recognized that being light-skinned opened doors for him and allowed him a certain degree of swagger that a dark-skinned man like Boseman would not have had.
In most cases, I don't consider it necessary for an actor to be identical to the person being portrayed. But in some cases, it counts. It counted, for instance, with Zoe Saldana played Nina Simone, because Simone's dark skin and strongly Negroid features made up a major part of her history and character. I can personally recall Marshall's light skin made a difference in the community around me even into the latter portion of Marshall's career. As I watched the movie, it never left my mind that the actor playing Walter White would have been better cast as Thurgood Marshall (but then, they'd need someone as light skinned to play that role as well).
But when fraternities and sororities are buying out entire showings (as the AKA did with the showing we watched) to get kids in to watch it, it's become more than just a movie.
Back in 2017 when this film came out I wrote above: "Chadwick Boseman is phenomenal. Not only do I admire the films he has been in, but he seems like a cool guy...down to earth, funny, fun, a little goofy in a good way. But here's what's important -- none of that is there when he is acting. He becomes the character more than many actors do."
After his death I ordered the Blue Ray of this film, but set it aside. I just thought it would be too difficult to watch. Finally tonight I rewatched the film, and it was difficult to watch. But I find that my thoughts about Boseman hadn't changed a bit. In that film he was Marshall. In the earlier film, he was Jackie Robinson. I just have to say one more time what a loss his death is to American cinema. He was exceptional.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
