“Assault at West Point: The Court-Martial of Johnson
Whittaker” is a made for TV movie about a shameful incident from America’s
past. Whitaker was one of the first
African-Americans to attend West Point and while there was the only
African-American cadet. He underwent the
silent treatment and ostracism for four years.
In his senior year, he was accused of staging an assault on himself in
order to get sympathy because he feared an upcoming philosophy exam. He was court-martialed and expelled. The movie covers the court-martial using
transcripts from the trial.
The movie opens with the elderly Whittaker and his
sons defending their home against cross-burning racists. A white reporter interviews him about his
past and this launches the film into flashback mode. The way back machine places us at the
beginning of the trial. Whittaker (Seth Gilliam) is
accused of mutilating himself and tying himself up to his bed. Gen. William Sherman insists on a
court-martial of the “ignorant coon”.
Whittaker’s lawyer is a well-respected white man named Daniel
Chamberlain (Sam Waterston), but Whittaker insists that a friend named Richard
Greener (Samuel L. Jackson) be involved in his defense.
Greener is an African-American who graduated from Harvard. He wants to approach the trial as an example
of racism. Chamberlain wants to defend
Whittaker in a color-blind way. The two
will be at logger-heads throughout the trial.
The prosecutor is the Judge Advocate of West Point. Major Asa Bird Gardiner (John Glover) is a
formidable opponent, plus he has the decked stacked in his favor.
The movie uses the common format for a movie about a
trial. Witnesses take the stand and this
usually leads to a flashback to reenact the testimony. These scenes are broken up by arguments
between Chamberlain and Greener about strategy and attempts by Greener to track
down witnesses to refute the prosecution’s case. There is also a subplot about the assorted
newsmen following the trial. They range
from racists to liberals. The key
prosecution witness is a hand writing expert who testifies that Whittaker wrote
a threatening note to himself prior to the assault. Chamberlain’s idea of refuting this is to
call another expert who disputes that it is Whittaker’s handwriting but then
proceeds to expound that being colored, Whittaker was incapable of “shamming”
an assault and was unconscious when discovered because he is a coward! Another damaging witness is the doctor (Eddie
Bracken) who dealt with Whittaker. He
lies and testifies that there was very little blood involved. Greener convinces Chamberlain to put
Whittaker on the stand. He does well
under intense questioning by Gardiner.
After closing arguments, the trial goes to the five judge panel. A wild card development impacts the outcome.
"I know you're trying to get me to lose my cool and start cursing, but I don't do that in a made for TV movie." |
This is a significant film that tells a forgotten
story from America’s tainted past. It
does it accurately. The movie was based
on a book by historian John Marszalek.
The book reopened the case, but it was the movie that brought the
attention that resulted in a posthumous commission by President Clinton in
1995. (The verdict had been overturned
by President Arthur in 1883, but West Point refused to award the commission
because he had failed the exam.) The
movie covers all the basics of the trial and uses actual testimony. The scenes outside the courtroom are probably
enhanced, but it seems likely that Chamberlain and Greener butted heads. Greener was a significant figure in the
African-American community. He was the
first black to graduate from Harvard.
One theme of the movie is the depiction of how an intelligent colored
man had to tread lightly in white society.
Jackson does an excellent job showing how has to control his righteous
indignation in order to get things accomplished. It is behind closed doors with Chamberlain
that his true beliefs come to the fore.
These scenes are instructive in portraying the state of civil rights in
the 1880s. Chamberlain represents the
supposedly enlightened whites. He ticks off all his pro-Negro bona fides and
then argues that they don’t want to rock the boat by bringing up race at the
trial. The movie portends the future as Chamberlain,
after the trial, let his racist flag fly in a number of ways.
The movie is not showy. It definitely does not have high production
values. It makes up for this in
acting. Samuel L. Jackson is perfect as
the seething Greener. You keep expecting
him to jump up and yell “I’ve had enough of the mutherf’ing snakes in this
courtroom!” As it is the most the
screenwriters give him is a simple “shit”.
It must have been difficult for him to suppress his normal screen
persona. Waterston is a good match as
the closet racist Chamberlain. Their
scenes where they argue strategy are well done.
Glover does a good job as Gardiner.
He is not Snidely Whiplash – he does not twirl his mustache a single
time. But he realistically represents a
archetype that existed in the military back then. The supporting cast is fine for a low budget
film. Seth Gilliam is solid as Whittaker
and it’s fun seeing Eddie Bracken as the doctor. There is nothing special about the
cinematography and music. It is what it
is for a made for TV movie that could easily be a teleplay.
In conclusion, watch this movie. If you are not infuriated, you’ll learn
something about yourself. And shame on
you if you're not upset with what happened to Johnson Whittaker.
GRADE = B
this movie hurt me deep but it made me a great man.i know how to love thank God I was bless
ReplyDelete