“Strong Island” received an Oscar nomination for its relevance to topical issues in our society (racism, corruption) but not for its actual quality as a film. First, the film does not do a good job of explaining the most important piece of the puzzle: the murder of William Ford. Director Yance Ford is obviously trying to build drama by telling the story in pieces as the film progresses but I’m still not clear on the details of William’s murder. Much of the film’s accolades came from its emotionally charged interviews and emotions were inevitable since the director created this documentary about her murdered brother. But then I think about the fact that she was the one recording her emotional reactions to various phone calls with people involved in the investigation. Suddenly, all of those scenes seem staged and even a bit self-righteous. But the hardest pill to swallow is the fact that the film simply doesn’t make a convincing case. In the end, all that I’m left with is the story of a man who intimidated and provoked another man, only to be shot in self-defense. It is hardly an argument that the Grand Jury ruling was incorrect. Persuasive documentaries should take time to present the other side’s arguments and refute them so that we can make our decision for ourselves, but the film is so one-sided that I keep wondering what compelling arguments the other side would make. “Strong Island” is undeniably emotional and topical. I love the artistry of using physical photographs to tell the story and other aspects of how it was filmed. I just can’t get behind a film that fails to make a compelling argument for its case.
[Pictured: The film has its artistic moments and points out the history of racism in the United States, but it falls short of making a compelling argument that racism was involved in the grand jury's decision]
No comments:
Post a Comment