Newton Knight (Matthew McConaughey) and Rachel (Gugu Mbatha-Raw): he has gotten for her an alphabet book
Dear friends and readers,
As is so common with me, I’m a few years late on this recommendation, but perhaps the year 2023 is more in need of this humane, intelligent, deeply-felt — and gripping, entertaining historical war film about US slavery, racism, and class privilege and deprivation. The film studies how human bonds develop, and how weak these can be against social norms, no matter how perverse and violent, when enacted and enforced by the legalized violence owned by high caste, rich, and ruthless elites. At each turn of the story I found myself recognizing analogies in my own experience of life and the lives of others I’ve seen all around me for lo these 77 years. The outline of the historical events, the general personalities of the characters, and specific events are historically accurate. Two main sources are Victoria E. Bynum’s Free State of Jones, and Sally Jenkins and John Stauffer’s State of Jones.
We move across about 15 years in the life of Newton Knight, whom we meet as a medic in the Confederate Army in 1862, and take leave of sometime after 1876, when he and the band of people, black and white, after many years of successful rebellion during the civil war, formed a community together in Mississippi with the intention of living a good life, undergirded by real human bonds and find themselves utterly victimized to the point many die, others flee. In the last part of the film the new civil rights (including the right to vote) are under fierce relentless (and more or less) successful attack by the old Confederate establishment, its laws and regime of terror and fire — through lynching and firing of men, houses and lands performed by the Ku Klux Klan. This historical story is punctuated by a story occurring 85 years later in the same area of Mississippi, where Newton, and his partner, Rachel (he could not marry her)’s great-great grandson is on trial for having illegally married a white woman. The latter part of the first sentence of this paragraph and the second one of the film’s last 11 years, have taken up proportionally far more space than the heroic uncertain and radical experience of the years 1863-1865 in the film. The central 2 to 3 year span of the film’s central development is well told in detail literally by the wikipedia article dedicated to the film
Sally (Jill Jane Clements), roadhouse landlady, abolitionist, facing questioning by military police
What’s omitted is the film’s clear and convincing “ideological focus” on the shared interests of black enslaved people who flee from their chattel servitude and poor and middling disenfranchised whites. The real Newton Knight and our well-played hero (kind and zealous) organized and inspired a guerilla army of black and white men and women (and children) who gradually (from an initial flight and life of a small band in a difficult swamp terrain) took over for themselves for what seems to have been a couple of years a sizable area in Mississippi where the confederate army could not come in and seize food, money, people. Newton is an ordinary – and intuitively ethical — man radicalized by circumstances. He forms real friendships with a group of escaped slaves including the significantly equally morally committed Moses Washington (Mahershala Ali), and holds onto his previous ties with a very few fellow white farmers. Early in the film, he becomes estranged from his white wife, Serena (Keri Russell) and over its course forms a loving partnership with Rachel, an enslaved woman working as a nurse in a nearby plantation. We move with him, and these other characters and further individualized people involved (like the abolitionist roadhouse landlady, Sally [Jill Jane Clements] and her black servant George [Troy Anthony Hogan] with his lieutenant’s hat and glasses) through a remarkable series of events, which expose the hypocrisies as well as the realities of the Confederate and Federal armies. For example, Sherman will not condescend to recognize Knight’s army as a legitimate force, and does not send them desperately needed arms and cavalry. At the close of the war, the enslaved people do not get the mules and land they were promised, but instead the white owner of the vast property by swearing an oath returns to control and profit from it and their labor. The film enacts believable human responses to some of the most important legislation of the war.
But it is no treatise. We are on our “guys and women’s” side as they fight back and kill back, bond, help one another. Wee experience real abrasion, foolish delusions (men in the army believe Hood’s promise if they surrender to let them have their farms and not hang them which latter he does immediately), see where women are sexually abused — but, as the New York Times critic, A. O. Scott (whom I quote here) says, “cruelty” is not turned into “spectacle.” Their talk and stories convey visual historical lessons Howard Zinn (author of often banned The People’s History of the United States, one of the film’s consultants) probably rejoiced in. Eric Foner was another; Martha Hodes, author of an award winning study of interracial sexuality was another. Newton’s way of voicing values like what you grow in the ground is yours, and “we kind of are our own country” is succinct, effective; the film’s didacticism is achieved with tact. We become very attached to the characters as during their time running their own small state, they experience better lives, partly through a rise in status among themselves, and I found myself intensely upset when at two of my favorite male black characters are murdered — for registering people to vote, voting, living with pride and dignity. Its ambiguous proud double ending — Newt and Rachel, with Serena come back to live nearby live out their lives on their farm in Mississippi, but under very tough circumstances; the great-great son goes to jail for defying the marriage prohibition — and sad song at the close stirred my heart.
Again Newt (McConaughey) and Moses (Ali) in a meeting house, explaining everyone (all males) who are citizens have right to vote
At the same time though much shorter in time span, the last 11 years where our “friends” are treated so unjustly and try to fight back clutch at our minds as we remember incidents in the political world we live in and (as I said above) perhaps incidents from our own lives. For myself how I once went long ago to try to get advice on going to graduate school, and was disbelieved by a bullying woman (I still remember a huge cross she wore across her huge bosom) who wanted proof of my average and then sneered at my ambition as a girl from a free college. I compared some of the moments towards the end of the film to the 2019 Great March of the Return in Gaza where Palestinians were murdered, maimed by the hundreds as they attempted to resist the brutal occupation and blockade by the Israeli armed state.
The acting was quiet, not overdone. Episodes are not ratcheted up to be a continual series of overwrought tremendously noisy and flash scenes. We really see how our rebel friends turn a funeral into a successful believable ambush; we see them pour the deadly “shot” (nails in bags) into the canons and fire. The film in this reminded me of Glory. Also a Peter Watkins documentary-like film on Culloden — a true masterpiece. It’s better than Glory in showing how horrible the mutilations of battlefield death and destruction of bodies are. In these scenes it’s anti-war. The landscape is beautifully filmed’ there are beautiful colors captured.
Gary Ross directed and was one of the two writers of the screenplay; the project was a labor of dedicated love, took 10 years to achieve, and had a hard time obtaining the funds needed. It is not a story the Lost and Glorious Cause, nor alternatively, a Fervent Abolitionist War, but rather how a rapacious, exploitative and deeply class- or rank-based society enforced a war, and how hard and often frustrated (and punished) resistance to this by a group of ordinary people could not last against the power of legitimized and/or accepted deadly humiliating violence. And yet these individuals hoped and lived on. Life itself is vindicated.
Again Newt (McConaughey) and Moses (Ali), this time riding into town to get back Moses’s son from a form of re-enslavement as an apprentice — this and other sly moments are filmed so as to look like Gone With the Wind or other conventional civil war movies
Another worthwhile review beyond Scott’s is by Richard Brody (again of the New York Times) who cites as one of the film’s flaws its thinking about slavery. Ann Hornaday (Washington Post) who also, while praising the film highly, complained it tried to do too much, and is a story of a white savior. Knight is not a savior, and because a film story focuses on whites does not mean it is not radically sympathetic to black people. Indeed there seemed to be among the reviews a desire to cut the film down to size, almost a resentment of its “noble” goals. These aims made it “stilted” according to the “review aggregator” of Rotten Tomatoes. For one explanation of why it is not remembered in the way it ought to be, see David Walsh of Socialist World Website. I especially liked Kevin Levin of the Daily Beast) whose idea it was that people could do with a little history. Many reviews here.
I loved many of the smaller moments: when Newton and Rachel enter the plantation house (now emptied of the fled family) and go up to the master bedroom where there is a beautiful bed, and Rachel tears up as she feels the mattress made of “feathers!” I felt her sense of proud surprise it’s she who is going to use this bed now with a chosen husband. I liked when Hood (Thomas Francis Murphy) sneered at a vindictive lieutenant that he is not going to hunt out a few renegades in a swamp to satisfy the lieutenant’s outraged dignity (those are not the words used). I particularly admired McConaughey who succeeded in a role difficult to put across persuasively today. The trick was the actor played the actor as someone who lived on the level of pragmatic reciprocation the people he had to deal with did, and had a script which allowed him to recognize verbally who were his friends’ friends and who their enemies. His angry rallying speeches (scroll down to last image) were great fun.
Listen to and watch the enthusiasm and raison d’etre of Victoria Bynum on writing her book:
Ellen