Malcolm X

I was only familiar with the history and influence of Malcolm X before I saw the film so I can't really judge it's faithfulness or accuracy. But as a film, I thought it was great. I really like Spike Lee; he keeps things fast-paced and interesting with his camera angles and colours/lighting. For awhile after Malcolm first begins his activism with the nation of Islam, you find yourself conflicted, both respecting the man and often disagreeing with him. Lee handles it well without condemning or supporting really, just showing Malcolm's gradual transition in his beliefs. The inserted documentary footage, especially at the end, shows how Malcolm's words still relate today. Someone commented that they only watched an hour of the movie and Lee doesn't know how to tell a story but maybe if they would be slightly more open-minded, realize it's not a literal adaptation of the autobiography, and actually finish the film, they could understand that Lee does not just want to tell the story of one man but rather wants it to reflect the struggle of a race. I really enjoyed the film; it was long but never slow and definitely worth watching.

With Malcolm X, director/co-screenwriter Spike Lee has produced a true-to-life biopic on the title character who was first a strident advocate for the American Nation of Islam during the 1950's and early 60's, later becoming an extremely high profile human rights activist during the civil rights movement, before his assassination in 1965.

The film dramatises key events in Malcolm X's life with the main thread beginning with his post war criminal career and later conversion to Islam whilst in jail, which directly led to his assumption of the identity of Malcolm X . Defining childhood incidents, including his father's death, his mother's mental illness, and his experiences with racism are dramatised in (ironically) brief flashbacks, considering the elephantine length of the rest of the film.

From my understanding of the life of Malcolm X, Lee has stuck closely to the facts in constructing his biography. I believe there is only a limited amount of fictionalisation for artistic and dramatic licence. For that, I guess many will be grateful. Lee has also recreated the roughly two decades the film's story covers, extremely authentically. The sets and costuming are first class, with occasional pieces of newsreel footage and still photos supplementing that of his own filming. The performances are uniformly outstanding. Denzal Washington must have been desperately unlucky to miss out on the 1992 Academy Award for his powerful, central portrayal of the conspicuously, hard-nosed and divisive X.

For me though at 202 long minutes, this film is too dragged out and warranted tighter editing. The first act focusing on his early life of crime in Harlem and later Boston is for instance, needlessly protracted with interesting, but ultimately quite unimportant night club dancing and musical interludes. Could it possibly be that its prolonged appearance is due to Spike Lee himself, appearing in this section as a supporting character?

Malcolm X is a technically well-made, obvious labour of love for Lee, but I think it may have reached wider audiences if edited to a more manageable, less indulgent length.

Spike Lee struggled mightily to get 'Malcolm X' made, financially and artistically. But when all was said and done, he produced an epic blockbuster and a definite treatment of the man's life.

There's great differences between the two as well, but to me Lee has many things in common with Oliver Stone. Both of them seem to have been born to make films. Both of them are uncompromising in bringing their artistic (and moral) vision to the screen, and neither will try to seduce the public by catering to their tastes. Both present their own interpretation of facts without apology. (For example, from what I've read it's not certain that Malcolm's father was actually killed by Klansmen. But Lee isn't in the same league as Stone when it comes to playing fast and loose with the "truth.") Stone even ends his movie 'Nixon' in a similar way to 'Malcolm X,' with footage of real-life figures blended in, though I'm not accusing Stone of imitation.

This movie has an epic sweep and scope and as a director Lee is up to the challenge. He is served well by being able to direct in several styles, one of which is almost cartoonish: witness the scene where Malcolm (Denzel Washington) and Shorty (played by Lee himself) go stepping out at the Roseland Ballroom, resplendent in their zoot suits. Some comic relief is welcome at times because otherwise the serious, heavy message of the picture might be overwhelming. For instance, the movie opens with a full-screen shot of an American flag while we hear a voice-over of one of Malcolm's most rousing, or inflammatory speeches, depending on how you look at it ("I accuse the white man of being the greatest murderer on the planet!") The flag begins to burn and eventually forms a flaming 'X' as the fiery rhetoric continues. But if you haven't been scared away, the next scene shows the young man Malcolm Little in a funny situation, having his hair straightened by a concoction that threatens to burn off his scalp.

Denzel Washington has won beaucoups of rightly-deserved accolades for his amazing performance in the title role. If you've ever heard or seen Malcolm X's speaking, you will be astounded at the similarities in tone and cadence. The illusion is so real one may not recognize that real archival footage of Malcolm is used late in the film. But this is not a case of style over substance here. Between Washington's talent and Lee's directing and screenwriting, an unforgettable character emerges. The film boasts other fine performances by Al Freeman, Jr. (especially good as Elijah Muhammad, a controversial figure in society, and eventually to Malcolm himself), Delroy Lindo, Albert Hall, Kate Vernon, Ernest Thomas and many others in its large cast.

It's clear that Lee doesn't care for the Motion Picture Academy and they don't particularly care for him. But the snubbing he and his picture got at Oscar time would be comparable to Richard Attenborough and 'Ghandi' not being nominated the year that film was made. Ordinarily, one would think this film is the kind of production Hollywood loves to honor. But Academy Award nominations or not, the film 'Malcolm X' is like the man himself: impossible to ignore.

Outstanding film, with brilliant work from Washington in the title role. Lee's direction is excellent and, despite being a tad preachy at the end, this is without a doubt his penultimate picture. The supporting cast also is great with fine performances from Angela Bassett as Betty Shabazz and the marvelous Al Freeman, Jr. as Elijah Muhammad. It's a terrific spiritual and emotional journey of a young black man in mid-20th century America. The fact that it is taken by a man who contributed so much to our history as Americans makes it all the more special. I urge all lovers of cinema- and history- to take this journey for themselves.

This is one of the greatest epics on one of the most complex individuals of the twentieth century. However, this was also a victim of one of the greatest snubs in Oscar history. Despite the greatness of this film it was only nominated for two Academy Awards. Denzel Washington, deservedly, was nominated for his performance. However, he was beaten out by Al Pacino for his portrayal of a blind former army officer in Scent of a Woman. But perhaps the biggest snub was suffered by Spike Lee. Lee made the film come to life as he told Malcolm's story, but he wasn't even nominated for his work. Perhaps it was because of his controversial statements regarding blacks in Hollywood that caused him to be snubbed. No matter what, this film should have received at least six or seven nominations, especially for Angela Bassett and Al Freeman.