NOW SHOWING: Woman King (2022)

 

                “Woman King” was inspired by a visit to Benin, Africa by actress Maria Bello.  There she learned about the female warriors of the kingdom of Dahomey.  These Amazons were called the Agojie.  Bello co-wrote the screen play with Dana Stevens and she became one of the producers.  Gina Prince-Bythewood directed.  She was influenced by “Last of the Mohicans”, “Gladiator”, and “Braveheart”, but the movie seems most similar to “300”.  The cast were put through weeks of martial arts training, running, and the use of swords and spears.  The movie was filmed in South Africa.

                The year is 1823. Agojie, led by Nanisca (Viola Davis), raid a camp to free some of their own people who had been captured in a slave raid.  The Dahomey are chafing at having to pay tribute to the Oya Empire.  Part of the tribute is slaves.  King Ghezo (John Boyega) wants to end that tribute.  This will mean war with the powerful Oya who are led by the ruthless General Oba Ade (Jimmy Odukoya).  The Oya have had more contact with Europeans and are armed with muskets.  Nanisca and Oba have a past which will be resolved in the coming war.  A new generation of Agojie are trained to participate in the war.  The movie has the mandatory training sequence.  One of the recruits is a feisty orphan named Nawi (Thuso Mbedu).  She is mentored by the seasoned Izogie (Lashana Lynch).  Nawi tends to bend the rules in the cinematic role of the maverick.  Nanisca sees something in the teenage girl, but is irked by her insubordination.  A subplot involves Portuguese slave traders.  The best friend of the villainous slave buyer befriends Nawi.   Malik (Jordan Bolger) is half-Dahomey and is open to switching sides.  After provoking the Oya, the Agojie must deal with a large Oya army that marches into Dahomey. 

                “Woman King” starts off with a clang as within minutes of the start, we get a vicious battle as Nanisca and her warriors bull rush a sleeping Oya camp. The battle is choreographed similar in style to modern sword melees.  The camera rushes from duel to duel, concentrating on the main characters.  It is vicious and frenetic and resembles “300”, but without the blood flying.  It’s still pretty graphic.  The war with the Oya is more of the same, on a larger scale.  It’s entertaining for action fans and for superhero movie fans because the movie is basically a superhero movie in a historical setting.  This is made more obvious when you compare the film to “Black Panther” with Dahomey standing in for Wakanda.  The Agojie inspired the Dora Milaje in that movie.  Nanisca is not a superhero in that she has no super powers, but she has the tormented personality of one.  The Agojie are her band of sisters and girl, they can kick male ass.  Not being a superhero fan, I was attracted to the premise of a war movie similar to one, but with some history thrown in.  I was disappointed that the movie offered no insight into military tactics used by African nations in the 19^th Century.  If you believe the movie, everything was frontal attacks resulting in melees.

                The strength of the movie is in the acting. The cast is solid, although Viola Davis was the only one I recognized.  She is perfect as Nanisca.  (Lupita Nyong’o turned down the role when she found out that the Dahomey were not like they are portrayed in the movie.)  Thuso Mbedu does a wonderful job as Nawi, effectively playing an outcast who is driven to earn a place in society.  Like all mavericks, she will violate the rules, but the film follows her into perils that make for good action scenes and escapes.  She may get on Nanisca’s nerves, but all can be forgiven as long as she wins.  (Ask Pete Mitchell.)  Their relationship is not stock and the interaction of the two characters is multi-faceted.  The villains (Oba and the slave trader) are not mustache-twirling.  Oba is formidable opponent.  Nansica has two duels with him.  Guess who wins the second.

                The plot of the movie breaks no new ground.  You’ve seen the basics in other war movies.  The underdog army faces a larger, more technically advanced, expansionist army.  The smaller power has an elite force.  Its leader has a lot of charisma.  There is a scarred warrior who mentors a feisty youngster.  There is a boot camp sequence with a montage.  There’s some palace intrigue.  I didn’t have any problems with these tropes because of the unique depiction of African warrior women.  However, Dahomey is made into a much more enlightened kingdom than it deserved.  The capital has a huge wall which symbolizes the fantasy that the plot has contrived.  The movie glosses over the fact that the Dahomey owned and traded slaves.  The Agojie free slaves, but don’t take any.  The screenplay defies reality by having Nanisca convince the King that they should stop taking fellow Africans as slaves and instead rely on the export of palm oil.  Sure, they want to be less wealthy and end a long tradition!  The film has a white savior in Malik. 

                In spite of the straying from history to paint a politically correct homage to the Agojie, the movie is well-made and black-washing the Agojie is better than no movie about them.  I’m sure the movie will cause some viewers to do some research on the fabled unit.  On second thought, maybe that’s not a good idea.  I did it for you below, but if you are looking for role models stick with Nansica, not her historical equivalent.

GRADE  =  B

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  The Kingdom of Dahomey existed from around 1600 to 1904.  It was located in western Africa.  It was a tributary of the Oya Empire and was required to pass on slaves to that power.  Dahomey also supplied slaves for the European slave trade, some of the Africans ended up in America.  It was inaccurate to have them backing off from capturing, selling, or using slaves.  In fact, it did not stop slave trading until 1852 when the Royal Navy put an end to it.  However, Dahomey did not stop owning slaves.  Dahomey was a military state ruled by an absolute monarch.  A documentary would not have shown them in a positive light.  For this movie to be accurate, there would have been no good guys (or gals). 

                As far as Amazon warriors (as Europeans called them), there is plenty of evidence for them.  Apparently, the creation of the unit was required because of the heavy casualties to the male warriors.  A King Houebadja recruited women who were elephant hunters.  They were called the Gbeto (also known as the Agojie).  His daughter Queen Hangbe is credited with expanding the unit in size and mission.  They were now her bodyguard.  There were about 600 women in the unit.  The members of the unit were a mixture of volunteers, captives, and women turned over by angry husbands and fathers (like Nawi).  They got training similar to the movie.  Some were armed with muskets, bows, or machete-like swords.  They led the army and helped in conquering other kingdoms.  These conquests were brutal.  It was not uncommon for them to return with severed heads. They were required to be celibate.  The romance between Nawi and Malik would never have happened.

                Nawi and Nanisca are fictional characters, but there was a King Ghezo who ruled from 1818-1858.  He expanded the unit to 6,000. He did fight the Oya and ended having to pay tribute to it.  The Agojie did urge him to increase the production of palm oil as an alternative to the slave trade (because the handwriting was on the wall now that Great Britain had intervened).  The Dahomey did not give up on owning slaves and continued slave raids. 

                It is obvious that research about the Dahomey was done to make this film.  It is also obvious that the screenplay had to change some facts to make the film viable at the box office.  Even with the bending over backwards to cast the kingdom and its female warriors in a positive light, the film had trouble getting financing.  It looks like the film will turn a profit (although I was the only one in the theater when I saw it).  Since making movies is a business and you want to put fannies in the seats, it makes sense that the movie does not reenact the annual sacrificing of hundreds of slaves in Dahoumey.  The movie doesn’t have a disclaimer, but it definitely was “inspired” by a true story.             

Lincoln (2012)

                “Lincoln” is not a war movie, but it is a Civil War movie.  It was directed by Steven Spielberg and was under development for about ten years.  Based on the Doris Kearns Godwin book Team of Rivals, which was about Lincoln and his cabinet, Spielberg was actually working on the movie before the book came out.  The screenplay was by Tony Kirshner who spent years researching the topic.  He took some artistic license as is to be expected, but his heart was in the right place.  Spielberg’s first choice for Lincoln was Daniel Day-Lewis but he declined the role.  Liam Neeson was tabbed, but after the movie was slow getting off the ground, he dropped out claiming he was now too old.  Day-Lewis then reconsidered.  He was rewarded with the Best Actor Academy Award.  The film also won for Production Design.  It was nominated for ten other awards including Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actress (Sally Field), and Supporting Actor (Tommy Lee Jones).  “Lincoln” was a box office success and was critically acclaimed.  As a post script, one impact of the film was the final unanimous ratification of the 13^th Amendment.  It seems that when Mississippi belatedly ratified it in 1995, the paperwork was not filed properly.  Prodding from two academicians caused the Mississippi Secretary of State to rectify the error in 2013.

                The movie covers the last four months of Lincoln’s life.  It concentrates on his quest to pass the 13^th Amendment.  Although more famous for his Emancipation Proclamation, that Presidential edict did not actually end slavery.  It declared that the slaves in the Confederate-occupied South were free.  The 13^th Amendment officially ended slavery, but it was not an easy sell to Congress.  Lincoln had to use all of his considerable political skills to get the amendment through the House of Representatives.  The film chronicles the machinations that led to the climactic vote.  Lincoln is a realpolitician who allows Secretary of State Seward (David Strathairn) to employ a trio of political operatives led by the earthy Bilbo (James Spader).  The trio prove that the “spoils system” was still alive and well in 1865.  Lincoln also allies with Republican Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) who believes that blacks deserve equality along with freedom.  Not all his colleagues in the House agree with his enlightened philosophy, as the spirited debates in the chamber depict.  There is plenty of 19^th Century trash-talking.  In the midst of all this political maneuvering, there is a back-stairs at the White House arc that portrays the dynamics of the Lincoln family.  The death of their son Tad weighs on Abe and Mary.   The aged look of Lincoln can be attributed to prosecuting the worst war in American History and being married to Mary.

                “Lincoln” finished #13 in box office in 2012, which was very good for a movie of its type.  It was the only movie in the top twenty that was non-fiction.  Three of the thirteen were superhero movies, two were teenage trilogy movies, and four were animated children’s movies.  “Lincoln” was the most popular adult drama and its success proves that you can make money with a movie that has a lot of talking in it.  Although I can imagine some audience members might have squirmed like Lincoln’s cabinet when he launched into one of his homespun stories.  The movie is dialogue driven and manages to be set in the Civil War and yet avoid the temptation to throw in explosions.  Kirshner’s script is entertaining in its blend of Lincoln’s brilliant wordsmanship and the political argot of the time.  Did you know they used the f-word back then?  They also used the term “fatuous nincompoop”.  That bon mot was uttered in one of the lively scenes in the House.  Jones gets the best lines as Stevens, but the rest of his distinguished colleagues make you wish C-SPAN had a Civil War archive.   Apparently, back then, they did not use the phrase “my dear friend” before they reamed them.

                The movie is almost flawless in its execution.  It is good Spielberg.  Although the start had me concerned with its lame Spielbergian recital of the “Gettysburg Address” by a white and then black soldier.  After that schmaltzy opening, the movie settles down to straightforward narrative of the events surrounding the passage of the amendment.   The narrative is extremely well-acted by a top-notch cast.  Day-Lewis richly deserved his Oscar and even shambles like Lincoln.  Fields is great (she gained twenty pounds for the role) and gets a scene where she sarcastically tears Stevens a new one.  (Sadly, this did not happen.)  Mary’s insanity is only alluded to.  Jones and Strathairn are strong and there are plenty of familiar character actors to flesh out the film.  The cinematography is showy with the appropriately dark interiors masterly lit.  There is some bravura camerawork, like a domestic scene where Lincoln can be seen in the foreground and in the background in a mirror.  Nicely done. The sets are authentic.

                As far as historical accuracy, I found varying opinions on this issue.  It depended on how nitpicky the historian wanted to be.  But, surprisingly, I also found that there is some disagreement about some of the key facts in the story.  For instance, one of the most provocative plot developments is Stevens shacking up with his black housekeeper.  This seemingly Hollywood invention is based on a well-known rumor/calumny of the time.  Some historians are convinced it was true.  I buy it.  Here is a list of some of the major “are you kidding me?” moments.

1.  Lincoln did have a recurring dream about being the captain of a ship.  The movie implies it was an analogy of the passage of the amendment, but most historians logically feel he was subconsciously associating the ship with the war effort.

2.  Lincoln did tell stories and the ones included in the movie, like the Ethan Allen story, were among his repertoire.

3.  By the time of the movie, Lincoln had culled his cabinet of naysayers, so the movie overplays their opposition.

4.  Seward did employ some shady dealers, but we don’t know whether they actually bribed Congressman.  Lincoln certainly did not meet with them.

5.  Congressmen would not have addressed each other directly in debates, but hurrah (huzzah?) for Hollywood on this one.  Also, the vote would have been by paper ballot.  Ditto.

6.  The Robert Lincoln arc is accurate.  He did insist on enlisting and Abe did get Grant to put him on his staff.  Abe would not have slapped him, even though their relationship was frosty.

7.  The peace delegation arc was accurate, but they would not have been met by black soldiers.

8.  There were blacks in the balcony for the final vote (one was Frederick Douglass’ son Charles), but they would not have entered en masse.  Mary did not attend.

9.  Tad was at a performance of “Aladdin” when his father’s shooting was announced.

                Overall, I consider the movie to be commendably accurate.  This, added to its excellent entertainment value, makes it an outstanding movie.  It is a must-see for every American.  Even if (especially if?) you are a Confederate statue defender.

GRADE  =  A

NOW SHOWING: The Free State of Jones (2016)

                “The Free State of Jones” is the newest war movie to hit the silver screen.  And it’s a summer release, imagine that.  The movie was written and directed by Gary  Ross (“Seabiscuit”).  It was filmed in the film-friendly state of Louisiana because we have some nice swamps and tremendous tax breaks.  (Who needs educational funding?)  It is based on the true story of Newton Knight and the secession of Jones County from the Confederacy during the Civil War.

                The movie opens with an ominous reference to the fact that the movie will cover the period from 1862-1876 - the Civil War and Reconstruction.  The movie begins with a short snippet of the Battle of Corinth, but it is combatus interruptus as we get the march to but not the payoff.  Newton Knight’s (Matthew McConaughey) job is to haul the wounded to the hospital.  A point is made that officers get preferential treatment.  This is part of the theme that “it’s a rich man’s war, and a poor man’s fight”.  Newt and his comrades are particularly incensed with the “Twenty Negro Law” that exempted slaveowners from conscription.  When his nephew arrives at the front, he decides they will escape by sneaking into no man’s land in broad daylight.  If this is not silly enough, their plot is foiled by three soldiers who want them to join in a bayonet charge!  The death of the nephew causes Newt to return home, easily.  Back at Jones County, Rebel soldiers are confiscating property and being dicks about it.  Lt. Barbour (Brad Carter) channels Bosie from “Cold Mountain”.  He’s a pretty lame opponent, unfortunately.

 

                When Newt’s son has a fever, he is cured by a slave woman named Rachel (Gugu Mbatha-Raw).  Suddenly, it appears the projectionist has put on the wrong reel because we are in a court room 85 years later for a very brief taste of a descendant of Knight on trial for being black and married to a white woman.  After this brief, bizarre side trip, it’s back to the Civil War.  Because he stands up to the confiscators, Kinight has to take refuge in the swamps where he joins some runaway slaves and bonds with a Moses (Mahershala Ali).  Rachel keeps them supplied and there is some more bonding, naturally.  The fall of Vicksburg results in more deserters joining them.  Newt organizes them into a guerrilla band.  Another theme is that the poor farmers are in the same boat with the slaves.  There is a nifty skirmish at a church that leads up to a battle to take the town of Ellisville.  This results in the declaration of “The Free State of Jones”.  Article #4 – “every man is a man”.  When the war ends, Moses works to register blacks to vote and Newt supports his efforts.  The Ku Klux Klan makes an appearance. 

                I give “The Free State of Jones” credit for bringing an interesting, little known story to the masses.  It reminded me of “Defiance” (a superior movie) in several aspects.  I have read a lot on the Civil War, but I was not familiar with this story.  As I will point out, the movie is admirably accurate, if unrealistic.  The acting is average.  McConaughey sucked up most of the budget for salaries so the rest of the cast is unknowns except for the underused Keri Russell as his morose wife.  The movie is essentially a biopic (more than a war movie) and McConaughey is in virtually every scene.  He plays Newt as a grim saint.  (He rebuilds the church by himself.)  There is not a lot of emotional range on display.  When his son returns after five years, there’s nary a hug.  The dialogue is terse and occasionally pious.  For every nongraphic, brief action scene, we get a religious reference.  This criticism is diluted by the fact that Knight was very religious.

                The movie is competently made.  The soundtrack is not bombastic and actually is not noticeable.  There is some showy camerawork of the close-up, spin around the head to show confusion variety.  The sets are fine.  You can certainly find places in Louisiana that take you back to the 1860s.  The problem is with the screenplay.  I have absolutely no problem with long movies, but this movie is too long.  The movie builds to the declaration of statehood and then fizzles.  It tacks on the Reconstruction sequence which does bring some closure to the black rights arc, but is not satisfying enough to justify it.  The flash-forwards to the court case may have seemed like a creative way to show how things had not changed in 85 years, but they just don’t work and break the flow of the narrative.

                I have a soft spot for movies that bring light to interesting historical obscurities, so I cannot be too harsh on “The Free State of Jones”.   It flubbed an opportunity, but at least we now know the story.  And thankfully, the script did not have McConaughey saying “Our rights, our rights, our rights”.

GRADE  =  C

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  Newton Knight is a controversial figure and some of his actions are legendary.  Obviously, Ross chose sources that were positive.  The negative sources could best be described as racist.   With that said, the script could have made Knight less saintly.  In fact, the movie is very light on conflict.  There are only cursory racial tensions among the deserters and runaways in the swamp.  And although Jones County was a likely anti-secession area (only 12% of its people were slaves and the county voted 374-24 against secession), the movie would have you believe no one felt that Knight and his band were traitors.

                Knight was religious, anti-slavery, anti-secession, and pro-Union.  However, he was not conscripted as the movie implies, but volunteered for the army.  One source claims he was enthusiastic about soldiering.  He became an orderly working with the wounded and was at the siege of Corinth.  He did desert, but there was no nephew involved.  His reason (and that of his right hand man, Jasper Collins) was the infamous “Twenty Negro Law” which exempted slaveowners from conscription.  The movie does a good job highlighting the resentment of some poor soldiers toward the dominant and privileged planter class.  However, soldiers from Jones County would not have been typical as most Rebel soldiers supported the slave system.  Upon returning home, Knight became acquainted with the depredations of the “tax in kind” policy.  The movie accurately depicts how farmers would be plundered of livestock and supplies.  Early in 1863, Knight was captured for desertion and probably tortured.  His farm was destroyed.  Deserters like Knight responded with looting and killing, presumably of pro-secessionists.  A Maj. McLemore (Col. Murphy in the film) arrived and started hunting down the deserters, capturing over one hundred.  McLemore was killed in bed, most likely by Knight.  Knight and his ilk encamped in the swamp at a place they called “Devil’s Den”.  Slaves like Rachel helped supply them.  Knight’s group became known as the Jones County Scouts and he was unanimously elected leader.  It is unclear how many of the unit were runaways, but it definitely was more of an anti-secession than anti-slavery group.  The movie probably overplays the poor whites are in the same boat as slaves theme, although Knight himself apparently believed this.

                There was a skirmish at a church.  It is highly unlikely that it started with a grieving widow shooting a Rebel soldier in the head.  There was a lot of Hollywood in that scene.  The Jones County Scouts conducted a guerrilla war that caught the attention of the Confederate government.  They gained control of the town of Ellisville, but there was no battle in the streets.  The Free State of Jones was proclaimed.  A Col. Lowry came with two regiments and quelled the rebellion by hanging ten and forcing the rest to take refuge in the swamps.  When Lowry withdrew, the guerrilla activities resumed.  The last recorded action was a skirmish at Sal’s Battery in Jan., 1865 won by Knight’s men.

                During Reconstruction, Knight supported the carpetbagger government.  This made him unpopular with many whites.  He did go on raids to free black kids still being held in slavery, but the Moses character is fictional.  Later, he was appointed head of a militia regiment of blacks to combat the Ku Klux Klan.  In his personal life, he had taken up with Rachel and had five kids with her as his common law wife.  Also living on the farm was his wife Serena who he had nine kids with.  They were never divorced.  He established a small, mixed race community that left him ostracized from white society and accounts partly for the negativity of some sources.  The subplot of his great-grandson’s trial for miscegenation is accurate.