I guess Adam has tasted the blogging apple. Well, what better way to start than commenting about a movie that I watched the other day. The movie is called “Miracle at St. Anna”, by the acclaimed director Spike Lee, who incidentally visited my university a few days ago to give some lectures commemorating the Black History Month. Time was probably the excuse why I did not attend one of his lectures, but after having watched the movie I really wish there was a way to have that opportunity once again so I could interrogate him about a couple of stuff about his movie that still kind of nag me.
For people that have not watched the movie so far, I would suggest to go rent it and then come back to this paragraph, for I am about to ruin the ending (did I say ruin the ending? I’m afraid that the director and his assistants have already accomplished this in the most artificially-sweetened way possible!) Basically, the setting is Tuscany, Italy, during the fall of 1944. In short, the plot revolves around the lives of four black soldiers of the 92nd Infantry Division (composed of solely black soldiers) that survive after the Nazis intercept their unit and pretty much annihilate everyone.
One of them finds an Italian boy, who was hiding alone, and decides to protect him at all costs. The young boy, named Angelo, was himself another survivor of a different kind of massacre, nonetheless also carried out by the Nazis. It is indeed interesting to find such an ironic set of circumstances come together. The picture tries to show how contradictory it might seem, for a black soldier to try to safe the life of a young white boy, given the discriminatory nature against black people at the time, even among fellow soldiers! However, aren’t these racial elements somewhat over-characterized? Even the need for a completely unfounded love story makes this story less credible (Please pay attention to the part in which Renata comes out after having spent the night with one of the soldiers, wearing his helmet and carrying his machine gun. Please give me a break…)
But let us talk about the grand finale: Now we find ourselves in the present and the only survivor from the four soldiers, Hector, who faces trial for having killed a man that he recognized from the war, is finally set free after someone has paid his two million dollar bail. So if you decide to kill someone in cold blood, there might be some rich lunatic to pay for it and not only that. He or she will also get you to the beach in the Caribbean! At least it is what happens in this movie. Hector is taken to the Caribbean to meet the one who paid for his bond and, after having a conversation with him, he faces another surprise… A funny looking guy approaches him and who could it be? Of course, it is Angelo!! Hector and Angelo hug each other and start crying, as the camera moves away from the scene, showing a beautiful setting at the beach. If you listen closely you can still hear Hector saying “Angelo…Angelo…” as the sound fades away! Someone call 911 please!
The great question to me is, how can an “acclaimed director” and his staff not realize the magnitude of a tremendous bullshit-ending like that?
February 24, 2009 at 4:11 am |
Because while we know what lies behind us, without the courage to move forward we will never know the miracles and the magic that lies ahead. Jesse Sometimes
February 24, 2009 at 9:43 am |
Ciao maestro,
l’ho visto il film! Ho notato anche io alcune cose che non andavano!
Anche tu hai notato quanto sia un pò sgradevole l’atteggiamento di Renata in quella circostanza!
Tutto sommato è un pò sdolcinato, hai ragione, però in generale i film sulla storia partigiana in un periodo come questo, di “rigurgito” filofascista, vanno bene per la memoria collettiva.
I hope you understand everything, it’s that reading the post I had to look for some word I didn’t remember! jeje
Ciao
P. S.: Next time comments in english and spanish!
February 24, 2009 at 9:47 am |
Dimenticavo: in Italia ha avuto alcune polemiche riferite al fatto che è un partigiano a “tradire” la popolazione di Sant’Anna, accordandosi coi nazisti. In realtà poi ti accorgi che si tratta di un traditore e non di rappresentante dei partigiani.
Mi piace l’idea del tuo blog!