What the Manolo Is…
Manolo says, it is Tuesday, time to see what the Manolo is…
Throughout the moive Amazing Grace the Manolo kept thinking two things. The first, “no one makes the movies like this anymore.”
This was such the earnest and heartfelt movie, one that was mostly respectful of history and its subject. It was also the very intelligent movie, one which presupposed some passing knowledge of history. Because of these things the Amazing Grace seemed like the movie made forty years ago, and the Manolo means this as praise.
The second thing the Manolo was thinking, much to his shame, was “How would Mel Gibson have made this movie?”
The problem with the Amazing Grace is that it steadfastly refuses to sensationalize its subject matter. The result of this refusal is that what should be the matter of the highest moral imperative, the abolition of slavery, is reduced to the story about the parliamentary maneuvering.
This is why the Manolo kept making reference to the Mel Gibson in his mind.
Say what you will about the Crazy Mel, but you cannot deny that he has the ability to move audiences, to make them feel intensely. In the Amazing Grace we see the characters in anguish at the thought of slavery, but we feel little of what causes their torment, and none of the real torment suffered by the slaves. The movie is somewhat bloodless, and suffers because of this.
This material in the hands of the Mel Gibson would have been sensationalized beyond measure, but you would have known, with your all of your being, why William Wilburforce felt so intensely about abolition, for you, too, would have felt intensely.
So the Manolo liked the Amazing Grace very much, but wishes that it had packed more of the emotional punch.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Again, the Manolo with the good media pick! But may I suggest that not giving too much emotional sensation is akin to assuming some historical knowledge? I think that the hinting, with the fleeting scenes of the children sleeping next to boiling cauldrons in the West Indies, is sufficient to call to mind the horrors of that experience.
Was Manolo responding more to the fact that the film failed to give dramatic insight into Wilburforce himself? Although I enjoyed the movie greatly (how visually rich!), I found Wilburforce a little flat. But I wonder if that wasn’t historically accurate? Gibson would have had slaver’s rape and murder Barbara Ann Spooner, but ultimately this trippy emotive trick would have meant nothing.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Though were Mel Gibson to have made this film you can be sure that he would devoted copious screen time to Jewish involvement in the slave trade.
[This is not to pick a fight with the Manolo, whose taste and opinions I respect in all things].
April 17th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
It is not the Wednesday YET????!!!
I think I am rather enjoying the Who’s Shoe Wednesday a little too much!!!
April 17th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I too wish the film had given more insight into Wilberforce. However, I believe his strong anti-slavery stance was motivated by his strong devotion to Christianity. I think the makers of Amazing Grace wanted to distance themselves from this hot-button issue of religion and make it more political. But if you look into the life of Wilberforce, his moral center was Christianity, and that is why he felt so strongly against slavery.
April 17th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Haunting, wonderful and perfect.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
I also wish that the film had shocased the lyrics of the entire hymn, not just the first stanza
April 18th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
[…] Incongruity Manolo the Shoe-Blogger reviews the movie Amazing Grace—about Britain’s abolition of slavery, if you haven’t heard of it. Published in: […]
April 19th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Manolo, be sure to check out Adam Hochschild’s wonderful history Bury the Chains, which was published last year and covers the same events as Amazing Grace. (I kept waiting for some kind of credit for the book in the movie but there was none.) The book is a terrific read and really fleshes out the story beautifully.