Harriet: En busca de la libertad

HARRIET (2019)

Abolitionist Harriet Tubman escaped from Maryland to Philadelphia in 1849 on foot by following the North Star and utilizing the help of the Underground Railroad, a network of secret routes and safe houses set up by white abolitionists and free people of color to help slaves to freedom. She then repeatedly risked her life by going back into the lion's den over a period of eleven years to lead other slaves to their freedom. She never lost a passenger. This is so damn brave it makes my head spin.

This film served up a substantantial serving of history, embellished by a modicum of fiction. Though it's not a movie masterpiece, it's a strong depiction of Harriet's Heroes Journey that lifted me up for days. Cynthia Erivo's portrayal of a determined Harriet, known before her liberation as Araminta "Minty" Ross, (and later nicknamed Moses because she helped her people escape to freedom), was stirring; her singing was the gold on the edges. Harriet used spirituals as coded messages to warn fellows of danger or to signal a clear path.

The antagonist in the story is the racist, corrupt system of slavery embodied in part by her heartless owners. Plagued by hypersomnia sleeping spells caused by a head injury when she was thirteen, Minty's owner Edward Bodess tried to sell her. This would separate her from her family. There were no buyers for her. Angry, Minty prayed, "Oh Lord, if you ain't never going to change that man's heart, kill him, Lord, and take him out of the way." Edward died. Harriet expressed regret for that prayer.

Joe Alwyn played Gideon Brodess, Edward's grown son, with a conniving, lecherous sneer. Guideon leered after Minty and tormented her. Harriet's husband was a free black man in theory, but not reality; any future children of the couple would be slaves, regardless of papers granting manumet to Harriet's kin, which the Brodesses ignored. She and her husband planned to escape together, but Tubman fled alone and travelled a hundred miles through wilderness to Pennsylvania, being followed by her scummy owner Gildeon. Well, screw him, she made it, and became a heroine.

The film is ultimately fairly frustrating. The central performance by Erivo was really good and powerful. The film is quite handsome-it was nice seeing some photography by Toll with a budget. The technical aspects provoke period and the director gets a lot of suspense out of Tubman's escape and rescue missions. The film takes a pretty narrow range of Tubman's life as its plot but working within that range it seems to be fairly accurate. It certainly was engaging. The film resists centering whiteness-abet not fully-and I was glad to see that the Underground Railroad seemed to be almost exclusively black. The film doesn't contain a white savoir trope so there's at least that.

However, the film's narrowness results in a too simple and too short of a rendering of Tubman's life. Her work on Women's suffrage was a mere footnote. Arguments around what sort of actions the abolitionist movement should take were greatly reduced. John Brown was omitted entirely. Fredrick Douglas was given a cameo. The film jumps years at a time and it results in narrative that is merely a skeleton of Tubman's most well known experiences.

The film is weirdly hesitant around Tubman committing justified violence. At times the film contorts itself to avoid showing Tubman hurting people, especially white people. It seemed to be too saintly of a characterization especially as the film leans heavily on Tubman's faith. (In general the faith stuff lands with emotional resonance). This is a far less visceral portrayal of slavery than 12 Years a Slave.

Overall I think this is pretty good biopic.

Oscar season is fully underway as there's nearly a new film every week that is attempting to garner enough praise to warrant awards consideration. Harriet's marketing campaign was less than stellar, and without a lot of buzz, I figured it was going to be a throwaway period piece about an iconic American hero. Luckily, Cynthia Ervo and a great ensemble help put this fill over the mediocre edge and instead boast a crowd-pleaser of a film. One that audiences seem to be on board with, and rightfully so. It's certainly not re-inventing the biopic formula, but it's undeniably engaging.

7.0/10

I went in wanting to love it, ended up just waiting for it to be over. The best part to me was the closing scene and the written adlibs after. I really don't like disparaging works that show the history of Blacks in America, as our stories need to be told, but I was very disappointed. The lead did not evoke any compassion in me, and the villain was very unconvincing. Think about it, 12 Years a Slave and Django had you side-eyeing the actors that played the slave owners because they emoted so well. The lead villain, Gideon Brodess, God Bless him, didn't pull it off IMO. The fact that the best performances were the supporting cast, Leslie Odom as William Still, Clarke Peter as Harriet's father, Omar J. Dorsey (no spoilers as to role) and Henry Hunter Hall (no spoilers as to role) doesn't bode well for a film. Maybe the fact that they made Harriet 24, 25 instead of a mature woman? Maybe it was the dialogue that was written a bit "slick" for the time period? Maybe the inconsistencies with what was presented vs reality? Even Janelle Monae was just so so for me. Although I do not work in Hollywood, when there are that many failures within performances and only the veteran actors shine, it may be the director. I dunno, but I was disappointed. I would still support the film because we need Hollywood to know we want our stories heard/seen. Maybe if Viola Davis' project had gotten support, her version would have been better. She was going to star in and produce a biopic on Harriet Tubman for HBO, but it never happened. I would give it 5/10 stars.

I wonder if the people giving this film a "nine" or "ten star" review or rating even saw this film? We are rating the film, not the person. If there is a botched and problem ridden film on da Vinci we don't rate the bad film highly because we like the person who is putative its subject.

Please. The scripting is insultingly lowbrow, almost patronizing. The acting talent has a good record in other productions but in this film is unrealized due to the other problems. There are quite a few ahistoric, frankly false, events in this film which are not needed and make the film more a less than credible hagiography as opposed to the plenty sufficient bravery, courage and strength of Tubman herself. Why maker her some kind of mythical comic book type character???? Is this the story about a real life hero, or about a graphic novel superwoman who people will just assume is fictional?

Lastly, I am not a religious believer. I am a confirmed atheist. But I find it troubling that Tubman's deep religious feelings and expression, whihc she used as the main, if not sole lens though which she saw the world, and which motivated her, is discounted.

The film is not a total loss, but Tubman deserves better, much better, as do contemporary audiences.