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.             

The War at Home (1979)

                One of the best books I have read is David Maraniss’ “They Walked into Sunlight:  War and Peace, Vietnam and America, October 1967”.  He follows two events -  the Battle of Ong Thanh and the protests at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  I have been waiting for years for a movie to be made about it.  For now, I’ll just have to settle for this documentary that covers the protests. 

                “The War at Home” uses the standard documentary format of mixing interviews with footage.  It starts with an introduction to the city of Madison, Wisconsin.  It was a typical college town, but in the late 60’s, like many other campuses, it was roiled by student protests.  The film gives background leading to the 1967 protests.  This includes the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the daisy commercial, and American troops arriving and fighting in South Vietnam.  It does balance the pro and anti views.  War footage is intermingled with protest clips.  By 1966, college students have become impacted by the war.  Yes, you had a draft deferment, but sooner or later you would have to graduate.  And if, like UMW, your school supported the war effort with ROTC and military research, protesting could be justified as not only for personal reasons, but for the greater good.

                The movie focuses on 1967. This is when a large number of students organized to halt Dow Chemical (the makers of napalm) from recruiting on campus.  The students responded with a sit-in which attracted club-swinging police.  Tear gas was used.  Although no one was killed like at Kent State two years later, there were numerous students who were injured. 

                Although the movie interviews both hawks and doves, it is definitely slanted towards the anti-war movement.  There are three times as many anti-war interviewees.  There are a lot of interviews and copious footage.  What it lacks is a narrator to provide background and connections between the war and the anti-war movement.  Like other documentaries about the war, it assumes the audience is familiar with the war.  If it was up to me, I would have included more anti-war songs for the soundtrack. 

                I’ve seen better documentaries about the opposition to the Vietnam War.  Movies like “Hearts and Minds” and “Sir! No Sir!”  “The War at Home” is a decent look at the war in general and the protests at University of Wisconsin – Madison in particular.  It could have been better, but if you are already familiar with the history of the war, you might be interested in a movie that is chock full of archival footage and interviews.  And if you have teenagers preparing for college or in college, it’s a curio of when college students cared about something besides cramming and boozing.

GRADE  =  C

 

The Purple Heart (1944)

 

                Lewis Milestone, the director of the masterpiece “All Quiet on the Western Front”, had hoped to make more war movies showing the horror and futility of war, but the Hollywood studio system clipped his wings.  During WWII, he left these themes at the soundstage door and joined the war effort.  He made three propaganda films.  “Edge of Darkness” had courageous Norwegian resistance members and patriotic civilians tangling with evil Nazis.  It was an entertaining film starring Errol Flynn, but was more pro-resistance than anti-war.  “The North Star” lionized Russian peasants fighting Nazi atrocities.  Although he was given a good cast, composer, and screenwriter, it is looked on today as a naïve love letter.  And ironically, it got him accused as a communist sympathizer by McCarthyites.  “The Purple Heart” was aimed at the Japanese.  It was based on the trial of the Doolittle Raiders who had been captured in China.  The subject was touchy because of the fear of retaliation, but the Office of War Information vetted the script and only asked that more recognition be given to the Chinese who helped the downed air crews.  In a stroke of lucky timing, the movie was released soon after the U.S. government presented evidence of Japanese torturing of American prisoners, including the ones fictionalized in the movie.  Although the Japanese had not signed the Geneva Accord, it was made clear that when it lost the war, they would be held accountable for war crimes because of mistreatment of prisoners.  The film was the third made during the war about the Doolittle Raid. It was preceded by “Destination Tokyo”, “Bombardier”, and “30 Seconds Over Tokyo”.  This, the fourth of the quartet, was named after the oldest American military decoration.  George Washington initiated the idea of rewarding American soldiers who had been wounded or killed for their country.  It’s bit of a spoiler alert and not a good title for a military justice movie. 

                You immediately know you are going to be watching a patriotic pic from the music that backs the credits.  We see the Purple Heart medal and a quote from Washington about it with “My Country ‘Tis of Thee”.  Reporters from various countries are allowed into an empty courtroom for what will be a “show trial”.  “Wild Blue Yonder” swells as the eight defendants are led in.  Each is identified by name, although they are fictional.  They are all being tried for murder!  Damn, if every aircrew that dropped bombs on cities was tried for murder, that’s a hell of a lot of murder trials.  Specifically, the judges accuse them of purposely killing civilians.  It makes you wonder what would have happened if the Axis had won.  Cue the requisite flashback of a very fake-looking bomber. At least you can’t see the strings.  Capt. Ross (Dana Andrews) is running out of gas and orders his men to bail out.  Their plane flies on for minutes and yet, they are all able to meet at the wreck site with no problems.  So, suspend your disbelief.

                Everyone in the audience knows what the verdict will be, so it’s all about how the Americans behave.  No surprise, the adjective would be stoical.  One at a time, they are taken of to be tortured.  The grilling is over where the bombers came from.  In a subplot, the Japanese army and navy have a dog in this hunt.  If they can prove the attack came from an aircraft carrier, the navy will have egg on its face.  (The movie does get the adversarial nature of the army/navy relationship right.)  The film spends as much time in the court (“those lyin’ bastards”) as in the cell (sappy home front daydreaming and sermonizing).  At one point they sing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” (audience, join in!)   They know that all they have to do is say “yes” to “aircraft carrier?” and they live.  Don’t hold your breath until one of these American boys cracks.  This is not a Korean War movie.   

And don’t expect any courtroom theatrics to change the outcome. There’s no “you can’t hander the tluth” moment with Gen. Mitsubi (Richard Loo) on the witness stand.  (Sorry about that sentence, I couldn’t help myself.)  The result was a foregone conclusion.  Ask Breaker Morant.  But there are two deaths that are unpredictable.  The movie closes with the defendants marching to their presumed deaths with a nod to the ending of “All Quiet”.  You can’t accuse Milestone for plagiarizing himself, but you can question his reminding the audience of his much superior earlier effort.

If you’ve seen “Judgment at Nuremberg”, this won’t remind you of it.  Well, actually, since I mentioned the term “show trial”…  It also won’t remind you of “All Quiet”.  Milestone had an up and down career.  This movie is one of the troughs.  It’s a weak effort.  The flashbacks and dream sequences are haphazard and don’t follow the usual courtroom drama format of reviewing the actions of the accused.  There is a scene where the prosecution sets up a movie screen to show footage of bombings.  Fake news!  The acting is like a local play.  There is a lot of scene-chewing, by the Americans.  And that’s with the torture sessions being off camera.  Physical torture is implied but they return to the court like zombies.  The Japanese are not as cartoonish as in many of the Pacific Theater movies made during the war.  None have glasses and buck-teeth.  Americans would have left theaters shaking their fists westward, but not looking for a Japanese-American to run over.  They couldn’t have done that anyway because the Nisei were locked up in internment camps.  That must have been the excuse the casting director used for employing Chinese actors to play Japanese.

If you are a fan of Milestone, you might want to see this movie.  Or if you are interested in the aftermath of the Doolittle Raid, although it shaky historically.  There were eight Raiders taken captive in China from two bombers.  They were put on trial for war crimes and all were found guilty. Three were executed and one died of disease during imprisonment.  The movie ends with all eight being marched off to the firing squad.  This avoids a more interesting plot which would have examined why five men were not executed.  I could not find an answer to that question, but I do have to wonder if this movie caused them to be seen by some as having broken under torture.  I need to mention that in spite of this movie, the four Japanese accused of being involved in the mistreatment and executions of the eight were given a fair trial and were given hard labor for 5-9 years.

GRADE  =  D