Free State of Jones Review [Brandon Keith Avery - JustMyOpinion.net]

It goes without saying that the American Civil War was an extremely dark time in United States history. For years gruesome barbaric events flooded multiple states for all, especially those of color. There’s a number of heroic tales that can be told during this time of mayhem. Wherever you threw a rock it would land in a place that had an unwelcoming presence of pain and torture. So to pick the Free State of Jones out of the bunch as a necessary story to tell must have been compelling. To me that’s what a true story worthy of a Hollywood production would entail. A story worth mentioning that will remind the people where they came from, as a lightning rod of truth to never go back to. Did Free State of Jones have this? Not at all. It’s just another history lesson surrounded by a man, and his so-called inconveniences, while being compared to slavery; which is ridiculously embarrassing.

Taking a glance at his past credits, I’d say I’m fond of director Gary Ross’ (Pleasantville, Seabiscuit, and The Hunger Games) previous work. He has a unique way of making you care about the characters. So with Free State of Jones I did care initially. With Newton Knight (Matthew McConaughey) becoming a rebel against the Confederate army, why wouldn’t I be on his side? Whether he was against ignorant, hateful racism, or the fact that he was fighting a war that wasn’t his fight, his reason for departing was respected. Though after a while of watching him carry out his quest, I was intrigued to see exactly why the story was focusing on him. Of course the audience found out later, and I was extremely disappointed with the outcome.

Before we jump to the end I did feel the film was entirely too long. The film was filled with important parts of history, but none that helped any of the character development for the characters we’re trying to follow. It felt like an unnecessary history lesson with dramatic scenes that never truly fulfilled themselves. Take when Rachel (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) was caught by her master trying to learn to read. Intense music filled the air, getting you to the edge of your seat, but then the film cuts away to someone picking cotton. I want to know what happened next! There were too many instances where this happened with no pay off. At first things were great. A group of rebels getting stronger and stronger each day, but it never went anywhere. So after a while you’re just watching back to back scenes with no weight, and an occasional time stamp flashes on the screen to mention an important mark in history that we already knew, diluting what came previously.

Besides the main protagonist Newton Knight, there were a few other characters to make note of, like Moses (Mahershal Ali). For the little amount he was present, he provided a memorable presence. Though everything good or bad that happened to him didn’t connect with the overall story. He was there to pull on your heart strings, but it’s a failed attempt. He’s a main character who you don’t get to know, but are being tricked to think you are. He has a mission, a family, and more than one reason to live. He has been abused every day of his life, and we’re told, “He has every reason to be filled with hate,” but he’s never hateful. While being a great character trait, this information isn’t conveyed by his own action or words, but by another cast member to create sympathy. Again, it doesn’t work. Comparing his demise, or trying to use that, to make the audience feel bad about the grandchild of Newton Knight is ridiculous.

That’s my biggest complaint of the entire film, and erases all the great performances and lovely shots the film had to offer towards the beginning. It started out great making you feel this would be another great Civil War epic with great action, dialogue, and performances. It’s not in the slightest, but easily could’ve been. The fact that the film is so long, cherry picks its brutality, continuously halts on a flowing story to tell history lessons, and then to have the main crux of the film fall on a White man’s misfortune because he can’t marry who he loves because of the race of his grandmother, is sad. Comparing that shortcoming to slavery is embarrassing and offensive.

4/10

Read more reviews by Brandon Keith Avery at Just My Opinion.net. 

Free State of Jones Review

Free State of Jones is a history lesson on what it was like to be a poor, White southerner during the Civil War, and the opening scene was a pretty gruesome display of what it was like to be on the battlefield during the Civil War. Though the film did not shy away from corpses with faces shot off, it did shy away from character development. And in the end the film paid for it with the audience having little emotional attachment to the characters, even main characters. Newt Knight (Matthew McConaughey) had plenty of screen time as the main character, but even he was not fully developed. From the beginning he was preaching that the poor, White southerners were fighting and having their resources taken away so the rich, White southerners could continue to have their cotton plantations. But the film never explored where he received such an insight, which many of the other soldiers did not share initially. His wife, Serena (Keri Russell), leaves him and later returns after he is living with a former slave, and yet he barely blinks an eye. Well okay, maybe he did more than blink an eye, but he didn't have much contemplation or anguish during such life changing situations. When she left with their son, because he was fighting everyone else's fight, he didn't even try to change her mind. When they returned, and Rachel (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) was living with him, he simply said Serena and their son will move into the house with them. So this guy who fights for everyone else's families, never tried to find his own son? And he's just going to move them in with him and Rachel? At least Rachel suggested they stay in a shack, making it more realistic by giving some type of reaction to the situation. But Newt didn't even acknowledge the statement, and just said they will move in with them. 

And I get the film was sharing a narrative not commonly shared about the time period, but why did it ignore the more well-known narrative that it had sitting in the background for the first two-thirds of the film? The first two-thirds of the film focused on the poor, White southern experience. And despite having Newt turn to about five runaway slaves for help, only one of the runaway slaves was given lines during the first two-thirds of the film, Moses Washington (Mahershala Ali). We wouldn't hear any of the other runaway slaves speak until the last third of the film. Rachel was given some lines, and we learned she had a desire to read. But despite Rachel being Newt's love interest, we are only given snippets into Rachel's life. But at least they give us some visuals, the snippets we get of Moses are only from his short verbal accounts. And yet they expect us to have emotions when his son is stolen or when he is murdered?? There were more emotional ties built for the death of Newt's younger cousin, and he's only in the very beginning of the film! And I was confused by Rachel's first reaction after the birth of her and Newt's son.  She brings up the baby's nose and how he could look White. It made it seem like a biracial baby was a rarity, despite Rachel being of mixed heritage and her past revelation that her master made her have sex with him. Clearly, she would have seen children of mixed heritage on the plantation, and was one herself. 

More importantly, the narratives of the Black characters were essentially pushed to the last third of the film, solely during the Reconstruction Period. And even then, it was more about external actions being forced upon them, as opposed to developing any of their characters. The focal point was on the narrative about the poor, southern Whites. And even when they mistreated the runaway slaves, only Moses had lines. The other runaway slaves didn't speak until the last third of the film, despite being present throughout the film. Why could they not also speak up for themselves? Why could they not have part of their narrative shared? Why did they stay to fight a fight for these men who disrespected them, instead of continuing on their own journey to freedom (or in the case of Moses to get his wife and son from Texas)? 

And I'm just not here for  Matthew McConaughey calling poor, southern Whites niggers, because like the runaways were running away from picking the rich, White southerners' cotton, they were running away from fighting for the rich, White southerners' cotton. Being drafted into the Civil War and having an in-kind tax where the Confederacy takes your corn and hogs during a war does not come close to enduring the brutality of slavery. And it certainly doesn't allow for the use of the term nigger. Could they not just say they are uniting against their common enemy, the rich plantation owners? Why did they have to use such a hateful term to bring that concept home? Belittling both the hatred behind the term in its use against Black people and belittling the plight of the slaves during that period; ignoring the benefits the poor, White southerners still maintained due to the color of their skin. Speaking of White privilege, given the very small voice they gave Black characters, there was no surprise that Newt was the "White savior" throughout the film, including speaking out against the mistreatment of the runaways in the camp and leading the freedmen to vote at the poll. 

And in addition to the lack of character development, and neglect of the Black narrative for most of the film, the film choppily placed scenes from the late 1940's throughout the film to add the story about Newt's descendant who was prosecuted for being one-eighth Black (though looking White) and married to a White woman. 

Ultimately, the whole concept of the film is formulated out of White privilege. Why couldn't the narrative represent both the poor, White man and the runaway slaves? They were both fighting, but the narrative clearly chose to focus on the former for most of the film. The runaway slaves, and later freedmen, were treated more like props and objects for most of the film. Then at the end we got a quick lesson on the plights of freedmen during the Reconstruction period, kinda like that one-twelfth of the year dedicated to Black history. And they crammed it all in during the last third of the film; KKK, lynching, taking back the 40 acres and a mule promise, kidnapping freedmen and putting them back into slavery under the new name of "apprenticeship," and attempting to exercise the right to vote. And even still, there were few lines for anyone other than Moses and no character development. It was as if the film was trying to redeem itself for pretty much ignoring the runaway slaves for most of the film, by throwing in as many of the wrongs done to Black people during the Reconstruction Period in the last third of the film as it could; all without letting them be more than props and objects. 

On the bright side, it makes me even more ready for The Birth of a Nation.

Free State of Jones Trailer