An X History. (American History X (DVD))

Member Name: peel.rebekah

Product:	American History X (DVD)
Date:	19/11/01 (287 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Better than if it had been made by Oliver Stone.

Disadvantages: Probably not as good as if it had been made by Kubrick.

Although rabidly tempted to write a review on first viewing this film, I resisted, I reposed and reclined, declined and waited until the occasion of a second viewing came my way. Why? Well, it's just so easy to be overwhelmed by the instinctual power of a film, to be persuaded of its brilliance by forceful images and a stirringly strong subject matter...and it is, perhaps, slightly more interesting to digest, even maybe to forget; to find again what you first thought you had witnessed and to see if it touches those same points in your thoughts the second time round.

*The Film.

The film begins through the eyes of Danny, a young but hardened skinhead, who is awaiting the return of his brother (role model/hero) from incarceration. On the eve of his brother's release, Danny hands in a school literature project based on Mein Kampf, much to the discomfort and disgust of his Jewish teacher...and the black department head, Bob Sweeney (Avery Brooks).

Sweeney, who was also the long suffering tutor of Danny's brother Derek, decides to refocus Danny's mind by getting him to rewrite the literature coursework, but this time his subject matter is to be his brother: Derek's beliefs, way of life, friends, the crime that led him into prison...and now the long awaited return.

But Sweeney knows something that Danny doesn't: Sweeney knows that Derek's point of view has changed somewhat since he's been in the slammer; that the hatred that burned inside him has finally manage to burn itself out, and a separate soul will return as Danny's brother.

The tale is told in flashback via Danny's essay: The suggested root of his and his brother's bitterness is heavily sign posted as the murder of their firefighter father by black youths; the rise of Derek as a much respected skinhead and Neo-Nazi, always the right hand man of the areas head honcho and almost-guru, Cameron - and finally culminating in scenes of the grizzly killings that Derek deals out
to two black men that are trying to steal his car.

The prodigal son returns (the whole family have been in a state of anxious uncertainty - the mother's health failing her as she is consumed with concern and worry for both her sons' futures) and the imminent Neo-Nazi celebrations for Derek's release hang heavy over his head. Derek now has to realise in the real world the lessons he has learnt in jail; he has to make amends for all his past mistakes, and he has to convince Danny not to make those same mistakes...before it's too late.

*The Acting.

Although there are many good actors involved in this film - and many great performances - there is only one character who is really given to the audience as a WHOLE human being, and that is Derek - Edward Norton:

How can I put this? Although the other characters are well written and well played, they are almost caricatures of themselves, two dimensional figures that point the direction to the central/real character of Derek. They are constructed around him, as to bring all attention to this pinnacle point of the film: The rise and fall of Derek, the Neo-Nazi.

Edward Norton surely is a new golden boy for Hollywood, Fight Club confirmed that for me, yet this film shows that he can shine without a pretty face at his side, and with a character so absolutely bursting with vengeance, antipathy and malice, a pit bull terrier of a performance: Here he wears his tattooed skin with a worrying pride; he struts his well formed form and rants with a heartful of hatred. The turn about in Derek's way of thinking is probably less well presented through Norton's acting, yet I feel that perhaps he wasn't given as much fodder to create the realism in that realm, and that we have to point the finger elsewhere.

Danny is performed by Edward Furlong, who admittedly plays beyond his years. The cock sureness of his young character is enough to turn the viewer away, to repel them from the storylin
e, but we are soon engaged in this little family history and its struggles by Danny's mounting honesty - and his obviously still childish mind reaching out to make sense of his world.

It is unfortunate that the character of Danny was not allowed to outshine the message of his brother; the viewer is left slightly vague as to the extent of Danny's beliefs, and to the same extent, the degree of his change of heart. On this level many of the characters feel shallow and too quick to jump on one band wagon or another, and many of them would have fared better had the story veered slightly away from the microcosm and embraced the larger picture.

Beverly D'Angelo is the boys' mother, Doris, racked with ill health and anxiety, and her acting lifts her, soaring above the other characters: I can't quite put my finger on what or why, but her wholeness as a mother and wife (the slightly glib dumbness of her towards her husband, the total and utter concern and sacrifice for her children) seems to fill a character that would otherwise be left as a shadow on the surface of Derek's becoming.

The acting throughout is further than commendable, yet for reasons beyond the control of the actors, all concerned are harmed by the centralisation of Derek and his story.

*The Direction.

Having said what I have about the actors, then I suppose I have to find somewhere else to lay the blame...but it's not really here. You see, this is Tony Kaye's directorial debut, and also what he expected to be his epic. Whether we choose to believe the hype and controversy surrounding this film and Kaye's call for the removal of his name post the cutting room (he claims that certain cutting choices were made against his wishes - and by Norton, no less), we HAVE to believe that Kaye meant and NEEDED this to be a longer film - the evidence is here, right in front of our eyes:

American History X is a long film, yet it feels like we are watching only half of wh
at was intended: So many areas of the film are teetering on the edge of being discussed, divulged and elaborated on; so many characters are so close to becoming full bodied. We feel that the storyline has lost its heart, its centre point, which is why we are pointed so utterly in Derek's direction.

The situation, post Derek's release, with the Neo-Nazi gang has an aura of incompleteness; we are almost holding our breaths in expectancy for what Kaye had planned. Derek's discourse of hatred before his conversion is given plenty of airing - we are in no doubt to the depth of his venom and misguided beliefs - yet his transformation is badly represented: Derek states he is confused, that he no longer knows who he is. His black co-worker is able to make him laugh, his black tutor shows him the path of righteousness, however we never hear Derek himself REALISE the equality of all and the disease of racism which is endemic in his society. Derek's girlfriend is unequivocally in awe of her boyfriend and simply regurgitates his ugly words; nevertheless she urgently abandons his side when he tries to explain his need for a new life and an escape from this hatred - per chance this was one of the many occasions that Kaye wished to explore...perhaps not.

The biggest mistake that Kaye made with this film was his choice to film the past in black and white, and the present/future in colour. It's just too obvious, a technique that one may use if one hasn't got the time and energy that this film definitely does have.

Not a mistake, but possibly a decision to learn from, was Kaye's (or the cutting room's) compromise on the scale of story - not only in the aspect of time - but also in the family focus. I realise that this DOES work, that the viewer is able to see the family unit being torn apart, and from there realise that the bigger picture is 'this family unit x 100000' being torn apart, yet had this film reared its head actually into the surrounding socie
ty it describes, we may have seen a much stronger film.

Somebody, somewhere, HAS to be held responsible for the shortening of the film and the dreadfully obvious dramatic techniques used towards the end...ermm, no, no spoilers today.

*Conclusion.

Second time around and I'm able to get certain scenes out of my head quicker; the morality of it all is in no way subtle, the characters in no way fully resolved...and I'm STILL in awe of a directorial debut, its strength and potency, despite the growing cracks and broadening flaws.

Summary: