Skip to main content

Four Black Icons Walk Into a Hotel…


I had to remind myself multiple times while watching One Night in Miami that the story it is telling did not actually happen. That Civil Rights leader Malcolm X, King of Soul Sam Cooke, and NFL star Jim Brown didn’t actually show up in Miami to celebrate Muhammad Ali’s (still known as Cassius Clay at the time) iconic victory over Sonny Lister for the World Heavyweight Championship. That their divergent ideologies on the black movement in America at the time didn’t clash so dramatically or literally in such a context. And that Clays’ joining the Nation of Islam or Cooke’s release of “A Change is Gonna Come” weren’t precipitated by direct interactions with these other legends of black America. I had to remind myself because the movie does a really good job of convincing you otherwise.
All four of these men did know each other in fact, as writer Kemp Powers would have you know, adapting the film from his own one-act play (he was also recently a writer and co-director on Soul). And given the strength of their individual beliefs and identities, it’s not hard to imagine how they would have gotten along with each other in private; how they would have understood or bickered with each other as they experienced racial issues in an extremely racially charged time from such diverse vantage points.
One Night in Miami is the feature directing debut of Regina King, coming off of consecutive Academy Award wins: an Oscar for If Beale Street Could Talk and an Emmy for Watchmen. And it’s an extremely competent first movie too. It’s not overly ambitious or distinctive, but shot elegantly, lusciously toned as befitting the era; and King seems to understand her strength is in working with actors -and that is essential for a piece like this.
A film structured like this would be dependent on the performances, even if they weren’t of four cultural legends. Once again, it’s a stage adaptation that doesn’t provide a terribly versatile backdrop for them -though King and Powers vary it up by getting away from the hotel room from time to time. Yet it doesn’t really matter because all four actors embody these figures superbly, and though the film isn’t quite as democratic as it perhaps wants to be (Malcolm and Cooke dominate the ideological power play that comprises most of the evening), each actor gets more than a few moments to stand out and make their mark.
Kingsley Ben-Adir and Eli Goree are the relative newcomers, as Malcolm and Clay respectively, and are both exemplary. Though he’s no Denzel Washington, Ben-Adir channels that fiery Malcolm X passion and commitment with such seamless confidence and gravitas. More often than not, he’s the centre of attention, his radicalism spotlighted as the film engages with both his principles and his character flaws in an honest way that sometimes makes him out to be more self-serving and arrogant than he’s typically portrayed. But it’s entirely believable and in-line with his values and character. Goree too, though perhaps cast mostly due to his resemblance to Muhammad Ali, taps into more than just the surface identity of this star still early in his career. He plays the youth of Cassius Clay very consciously, with a number of references to his age (twenty-two) in relation to his climbing celebrity. But he also plays well this man at a crossroads, uncertain of his responsibilities and spirituality -not devoid of them, but needing guidance, which Malcolm is only too happy to provide.
Then there’s Brown, played by the continually impressive Aldis Hodge. He might be the least showcased character and without any strong opinions, but Hodge has a real screen presence as he acts as the go-between for the other characters and endures a scene early on with Beau Bridges that is quite sobering. In fact the films’ failure to adequately follow up on that encounter is one of its only weak spots. His aspirations and ideas are kept mostly to himself, and guarded among those of his more extroverted friends -and he shares a lot in common with Cooke, played by Leslie Odom Jr., who comes closest of the four to breaking out as the films’ strongest contender. The script of course allows for Odom to show off his musical talents, but his nuanced emotional performance is quite astonishing too. There’s a sense of immense pressure hanging over Cooke, exacerbated of course whenever Malcolm lays into his career choices, and Odoms’ quiet embarrassment yet passionate conviction in his work rivals that of Malcolm at every turn. You really get the sense this is a tense friendship, built on a level of personal respect, but strong political disappointment.
And this films’ Malcolm and Cooke, as true as they are to their real world counterparts, are also avatars for a very particular kind of political discourse that is as much present now as it was in 1964. Malcolm spends a lot of time chastising Cooke for being essentially a tool of white supremacy in his view; for writing and performing songs that don’t advance the cause for black Americans. Cooke however, defends himself aggressively for the success he’s earned and the work he’s done to benefit black artists behind the scenes. And it cuts deeply to the issue of black celebrities having to be ambassadors more than just people. Sidney Poitier (who incidentally would have fit right in here) famously felt he couldn’t diversify his acting choices because of a responsibility to be a positive representative of black masculinity. Cooke likewise feels strongly about black rights, but he doesn’t want that to be his identity, he’s content to make the music he does and it’s gotten him to the point where, as Brown points out, he’s the only one of them who doesn’t work for a white boss. It’s the difference between fighting for personal success and fighting for widespread advancement -and the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Particularly it speaks to a strong divide in the means to achieving desirable ends, and especially that division as it applies to left-wing politics in the United States, with Malcolm the radical and Cooke the mere liberal. One Night in Miami doesn’t really fall down on either side, as extensively as its’ debated -both standpoints are valid and both clouded by bias. The point is that they’re in this together, working within their arenas towards the same goal.
One Night in Miami is sure to be compared a lot to Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom -both adaptations of plays about race featuring significant figures of black history that are set in the past yet soundly relevant to modern times coming out within a month of each other. It’s unfortunate because both are very good and for a lot of the same reasons, but also quite different in their approach and execution. Both are well worth seeing and deserving of the praise heaped upon them. One Night in Miami might be more accessible, slightly more simple -it resurrects three important and influential men of African-American culture (Brown is still alive) and a key moment of black history to imagine conversations that may not have literally happened, but should be presently allowed to. That it’s a strong showcase of each of its actors and the skills of a promising new director only increases its’ fascinating appeal.
And that Leslie Odom Jr. version of “A Change is Gonna Come” is really something as well!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...