Monster! Monster?

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)

I've written this a thousand times, but I'll repeat it once again: I absolutely love one-location movies. I don't know exactly if most of Monster is actually developed inside the courtroom, but it genuinely feels like it. In fact, I believe every scene outside this place is told through extended flashbacks with narration from Steve Harmon about what happened before and on the day of the crime. Since the protagonist is a film student, his voice-over contains descriptions often seen in screenplays, which it's pleasant at first, but then gets overdone.

The trial is definitely the most captivating part of the story. Anthony Mandler and his team of writers demonstrate perfectly some real-life aspects of how the law works. From the well-known emotional disconnect of (some) lawyers with their clients to the prejudiced treatment of people of color, the courtroom sequences keep the movie interesting until its somewhat predictable, unsurprising conclusion. However, despite the exceptional performances from everyone involved, especially Kelvin Harrison Jr., the case itself wraps up with unanswered questions and some messages lost in the transmission.

While the viewers spend the entire runtime following Steve being a good son, brother, and friend, the other Black characters being accused don't receive the same treatment. At one point in the film, someone says "you must consider him innocent until evidence proves him guilty", but this only applies to the protagonist since everyone else is presumed to be guilty from the get-go without the audience ever seeing or hearing their point of view or knowing why they committed that crime. Furthermore, even though the viewers get to know the verdict, Steve's true impact on the murder remains questionable due to the last couple of flashbacks, which begs the question: "are we really supposed to root for him?"

Rating: C.

Production: Good script. Okay editing. Some of the scenes were a little jarring to the narrative. Good casting. Sets look realistic. 6/10.

On screen: Good to decent acting. Most of the actors are believable, but sometimes their actions seemed unnatural. Good cinematography. The artsy esthetic works for this film. 7/10.

Content/Impact: The telling of this story is necessary to combat the racism that black people, especially young black men, face today. The humanity that is shown throughout the film of black youth and how racism can write their own narrative is profound. Not only did it illustrate this through the main character Steve Harmon but the fact that it was shown through one of the "antagonists" William King shows us the complexity of black people meaning that black people are people too just like everyone else breaking the stereotype that black people are a monolith. 10/10.

Overall: Solid book to film adaptation needed in the world we live in today. 7.6/10.

Why do movies so regularly show the murder suspect going to trial, of all things, nearly immediately after arrest? The average time for this particular situation is two years or so before full trial. Our "hero" would have had several months in jail, not prison, leading up to it. After a conviction he'll do his time in prison. It's that simple, why not hire a competent consultant or listen to their "consulting", you know, what you pay them for?

And a lone detective dressed like a comic book investigator making the arrest? Absolutely laughable!

The gray colored courtroom looked like either a cartoon or Star Trek simulation room, I can't decide which. Ridiculous decision, and yes I get the artistic angle since they were pushing it so hard, but still bad. The narration even mentioned it, referring to justice being black or white, no gray. Then it's pure gray, huh?

Wright, Nelson, and Victor all had excellent performances as expected, rest were meh.

It seems quite obvious where the movie leads at first. It does take a few turns and twists along the way. The main thing is how certain people are viewed though - based on the color of their skin as one example that is being explored here. You may feel that this is being a bit one dimensional, but as I already stated there is more to it than at first sight (no pun intended) and also unfortunately as cliche as it may sound, it is bitter reality ... still to this day.

Having said all that, the movie has some very actors in it ... and some very dramatic moments to say the least. Many times if a colored kid is being singled out and made responsible for a crime, they plead for a bargain ... which is anything but that, especially if they are innocent. This goes to the court ... which can turn out to be even worse than taking a plea deal ... what will happen here? Well I am not going to tell you, you have to watch if you want to know ... but be prepared for everything ...

'Monster' refers to the opening statement made by the prosecutor and how he chooses to label Steve, - Kelvin Harrison Jr- based on a presumed guilt that isn't just a result of his position within the courtroom but also because of Steve's race, the idea that a 17-year-old black male is somehow inherently barbaric.

It's the same assumption that's led to countless state-sanctioned killings or imprisonments, based less on facts of the case and more the fear that surrounds it and Monster smartly avoids looking at the frustration of the political to focus on the horror of the personal. Just how terrifying would every stage of this process be for a teen?

Aside from the harrowing practicalities of life in prison, how would an already fractured time mentally effect an adolescent. Then shatter under this new lens? How would one then start to view one's self?

The trick for Steve and his lawyer (Jennifer Ehle) is to turn him into a human for the members of the jury, rather than the stereotype as they see him.

The same applies for first-time director Anthony Mandler, working against members of the audience who might arrive to the film, and the situation, with similar 'baggage'

A thoroughly enjoyable movie. I've given this 7/10.