Another reviewer on this board made a good point; history classes in the 1950's and 60's were quite devoid of true life cases that helped shape American politics and policies prior to the Civil War. In my case, it was as if not much occurred between the presidencies of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, with names like Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk and Fillmore relegated to the dustbin of history. As we learn in the "Amistad" story occurring in 1839, the country was already bracing for a conflict over the slavery question. Senator John C. Calhoun (Arliss Howard) was flexing his oratory muscles for debate on the issue, and the scene where he challenges President Van Buren (Nigel Hawthorne) at the dinner table is particularly compelling.
The performances as well as the film itself appear award worthy, and the movie seems to have been overlooked somewhat in that regard. In a year when "Titanic" was destined to overwhelm in terms of sheer spectacle, I find it hard to imagine that a title like "The Full Monty" was deemed more worthy than this. I suppose that shouldn't really surprise followers of the Academy Awards, as recognition doesn't always follow quality.
Speaking of performances, this is one film where the actors dissolve into their characters better than most across the board. Matthew McConaughey acquits himself well as lawyer Baldwin, and Djimon Hounsou is riveting as the slave Cinque. I would have liked to see Morgan Freeman delivering more power to the story, but within the parameters he was given, he's solid as ever. The tour de force portrayal of course is given by Anthony Hopkins as former president John Quincy Adams, his speech before the Supreme Court is mesmerizing to help turn the tide for the slaves on trial. Brilliantly done.
It was also interesting to note how newspapers of the era were as editorially slanted as those of the present day. When we see the first pass of the New Haven newspaper regarding the slaves of the Amistad, the caption reads 'Massacre At Sea'. Quite different from the way sympathetic readers would eventually get to see it - 'Freedom Fight At Sea'. In all aspects, the film brilliantly conveys the innate resonance and power of language.
The performances as well as the film itself appear award worthy, and the movie seems to have been overlooked somewhat in that regard. In a year when "Titanic" was destined to overwhelm in terms of sheer spectacle, I find it hard to imagine that a title like "The Full Monty" was deemed more worthy than this. I suppose that shouldn't really surprise followers of the Academy Awards, as recognition doesn't always follow quality.
Speaking of performances, this is one film where the actors dissolve into their characters better than most across the board. Matthew McConaughey acquits himself well as lawyer Baldwin, and Djimon Hounsou is riveting as the slave Cinque. I would have liked to see Morgan Freeman delivering more power to the story, but within the parameters he was given, he's solid as ever. The tour de force portrayal of course is given by Anthony Hopkins as former president John Quincy Adams, his speech before the Supreme Court is mesmerizing to help turn the tide for the slaves on trial. Brilliantly done.
It was also interesting to note how newspapers of the era were as editorially slanted as those of the present day. When we see the first pass of the New Haven newspaper regarding the slaves of the Amistad, the caption reads 'Massacre At Sea'. Quite different from the way sympathetic readers would eventually get to see it - 'Freedom Fight At Sea'. In all aspects, the film brilliantly conveys the innate resonance and power of language.