Detroit

Coming from a place of white privilege it is hard for me to understand the events that Detroit depicts. 

I can have my own opinions on it, but I can't answer questions like: why are they looting their own stores? Why are they burning their city? Why don't they just answer the police's questions? 

I don't know because I wasn't there and I don't understand because I've never been on the receiving end of racism. I'm fully willing to admit that. 

Detroit, coming from Zero Dark Thirty director, Kathryn Bigelow, focuses on a narrow series of events during the riots within the city during 1967. No matter your political leanings, it's easy to see similar themes with a lot of the "Black Lives Matter" protests and police brutality cases of the past year. Bigelow doesn't shy away from drawing those similarities either. 

So...while I may not be able to understand or really even comprehend some of the events that take place in Detroit I do think I'm "qualified" to review it as a film. 

As a film, it's a taut thriller encapsulated in an [over]long film that carries along Bigelow's signature intensity to great dramatic effect.

Detroit begins with an interesting, high-level overview animation of how the Civil Rights Movement in America was setup. There's no politics here -- and I'd argue that Bigelow only takes a side of "racism is bad" throughout the film -- it's more of an explanation of what groups moved where and when. From there, we're thrown into the start of the Detroit riots that get progressively worse over the course of the next 30 minutes. Looting, burning buildings, rioting, etc. It's all stuff that, again, looks eerily similar to some of our current racial tension issues. During a rather "normal" night of the riots, a large group of National Guardsman, local police, and state police are gathered near the Algiers Hotel and a starter pistol's fake shots send them into a frenzy, thinking a sniper is firing upon them. What follows is an insanely intense game and display of police brutality and power trips -- depicting what happens when you give unsavory people a gun and some power. 

Probably the character with the most unfavorable position in the film...

Still from movie?
Or still from recent media?

Given that I knew almost nothing about this film going in, I've spent some time researching the event before writing this. It's certainly not enough to call me an expert by any means (though there is an intriguing book about the incident that I might add to my reading list), but it brings to light some of the inconsistencies of the evening and where Bigelow takes some liberties with the film. Much to her credit, there is a disclaimer at the end of the film that it was built around facts, recollections and testimonies from the evening, as well as court testimonies. Certain parts were "elaborated" in order to connect events and tell the story. Personally, I think every single "based on a true story" film should have this disclaimer, so I give Bigelow props for having the balls to do so. I can see a lot of people immediately arguing that it discredits the film completely (it doesn't). It's hard to fault her or the film at all then because in a few instances where I asked "How did they even know this?" it's answered that they very well might not have, but they used the information provided to craft as accurate a film as possible. 

Detroit is always a good film and often a great one. At times, it's a classic one. My issue with it comes from its length and the final 30-40 minutes. These minutes are spent carrying out the trial of the police officers who were there that night and wrapping up some character arcs. I see why Bigelow did it, but, especially after Dunkirk, I'm almost wondering if a quicker, main-event-only thriller would have been a better film. It wouldn't have been the "whole" story, no, but Detroit as it stands now is fairly exhausting with it's hour+ of tightly-wound tension followed by another half hour or more of wrap-up. I also don't think Bigelow's style lends itself all that well to more mundane scenes as it sometimes feels like forced tension. Super close-ups with tight frames and a constant wavering camera add a lot when lives are on the line, but when a character is riding a train, smoking outside a courtroom, or even singing; it feels a little out of place. 

Those 60+ minutes of the Algiers incident though are some of the year's best. You'll be on the edge of your seat and your mind teeters back and forth from I can't believe they're doing this vs. This really happened? vs. I really hope that __ doesn't happen. As it's presented in the film, the incident is a disgusting display of racism and a power trip of the highest order. One where a group of authoritative figures -- that are supposed to protect and serve -- forget the laws of their own land and treat American citizens as if they're at Guantanamo Bay. A lot of this intensity comes from Bigelow's style and approach. Tight shots and wavering cameras do a lot here and the editing is perfect. We know where all characters are at all times and you never lose track of what's happening. There's also an effective use of sound here. Gunshots are loud and lethal, as are punches, and deep breathing from characters is a constant reminder that these people are in duress. It sounds small, but the breathing of characters, louder than normal, is probably what made me the most uncomfortable (in the way Bigelow was intending). And then we get to the performances which are some of the best of the year. Boyega was largely used as a marketing technique as his role is smaller than believed here. Even still, he crushes it as a security guard caught in probably the most unfavorable position: being black, in a position of power, and trying to keep everyone alive. I can't even begin to calculate what I would have done in that situation. All other performances are fantastic, including some late additions in the court room, but the star of the show is really Will Poulter. He emerges as the leader of this "game" in the Algiers and delivers one of, if not the outright best, performance of the year. He's a real life villain and, coming from someone who thought he was the absolute wrong choice for the role, blew me away. His character portrays an undeserved authority with a skewed understanding of the world; fully capable of ignoring the rules but then being equally terrified of them. It'll be really interesting to see where his career goes from here. 

His career will take off

As with Bigelow's previous films, Detroit can almost be too intense to bear at times. That's what she wanted and it makes you realize that you can't even begin to fathom what those kids felt that evening. I don't think it's a perfect film because the end feels pretty disjointed from everything else, but it's a consistently great film and one that encourages you to read up on the event for yourself. The only political stance that Bigelow takes is that racism is bad -- hopefully we can ALL agree on that -- and otherwise presents the film straightforward based on a compilation of available info. What results is a timely, hard-to-watch, play-by-play of one of America's darkest evenings during the Civil Rights Movement.

CONS

• The final 30-40 minutes, while I understand its purpose, feels almost like an entirely different film. Not to mention, as an audience, you're exhausted
• Bigelow's trademark style doesn't lend itself well to the mundane
• Camera wavers in particular feel out of place more than a few times here

PROS

• The event itself is an intense portion of the film. Hard to watch but filmed with near perfection
• Kudos to Bigelow for the disclaimer at the end of the movie in regards to the film's accuracy and how they portrayed the event
• Great editing during the incident and a lot of good use of sound (i.e. breathing) during this time
• Strong direction from Bigelow
• Fantastic performances from all, with Poulter's being exceptionally amazing. A haunting performance from him for sure

Rath's Review Score | 8.5/10