Amistad - a true epic

The movie is based on a historical 1839 legal battle which took place in the United States, after a group of slaves took control of a small ship, "La Amistad", and ended up on the shores of the New World, instead of their homes in Africa. The movie portrays this as having much to do with the duplicity of the Spanish navigator, whom the Africans take prisoner and unwisely decide to trust.

Once in American custody, a number of claims are made as to ownership, since slaves were of course regarded as property. Among those claiming ownership are the two surviving Spaniards from "La Amistad", Queen Isabella II of Spain, and two United States army officers who captured the slaves. Then, of course, there are the abolitionists, who want nothing less than the total destruction of slavery, which in 1839 was still a harsh reality in the nation's Southern states. Morgan Freeman plays a modest role as a member of the abolitionists, having been an ex-slave himself. He ends up realizing that despite his lofty ambitions, the case is generally a property issue, and allows a young lawyer (Matthew McConaughey) to represent the abolitionists, and the slaves themselves. Pete Postlethwaite opposes him as the prosecution.

The movie is well-directed, and really captures the period well. Set two decades before the outbreak of the American Civil War, the tensions between North and South are already high. As a result, the case, which in theory should be nothing more than a plain property issue, has immense significance heaped upon it, which even the American President, Martin Van Buren (Nigel Hawthorne), who hopes to be re-elected and thus needs to keep the South happy, cannot ignore.

Djimon Honsou, as Cinque (the leader of the group of slaves), produces the strongest performance in an impressive cast. Special mention should also go to Anthony Hopkins as John Quincy Adams, a former American president McConaughey calls upon for assistance. His closing comments are a masterpiece, and are delivered exquisitely.

Emotional moments abound throughout the legal battle, and despite the supposed nature of the case, some are used by the defense in an attempt to sway the court (e.g. Adams' closing comments). Others are used to paint a vivid picture of the slaves' experience, such as when Cinque and another African interpret the New Testament through an illustrated Bible. These lucid scenes are worthy of an epic, but the question remains as to how important instances such as Adams' speech actually were in the case. I am not well-versed in the actual history of the case, but if it truly was merely a property issue, were moral arguments the defense raised in the movie really used in reality? Throughout the legal contest, it was of the utmost importance to prove where the slaves were from. If they were from Africa, the Spaniards would have to answer to the charge of slave-trading, and the Africans would be free. If they were from Cuba, on the other hand, and had been born slaves on a plantation, they would be returned to their rightful owners and probably executed. With this fact in mind, would moral considerations of slavery have ever entered the trial at all?

This question does not, however, detract in any way from the excellence of the movie, and the high quality of the acting. Very highly recommended.