To Sleep with Anger

"To Sleep with Anger" It is one of the richest film experiences I've had in a very long time. Since I saw it in 1993, no other American film has seemed as winning and varied as this one. It is a film I return to again and again, for the brilliant ensemble cast, the witty writing and the blend of humor, folklore and tragedy. There are no cinematic pyrotechnics. Mr. Burnett's approach to filmmaking is deceptively simple and yet his film seems far richer and more cinematic than many a more "sophisticated filmmaker". Mr. Burnett has taste and economy. He knows where to place his camera for the greatest effect and how to edit his films in a way that enhances the drama of each scene, rather than using edits to manufacture drama in a scene that is dramatically inert. He is a filmmaker of integrity and genius. This is his masterpiece.

Charles Burnett is the unsung vanguard of African-American cinema, who starts his career years before Spike Lee, yet whose output is far less prolific, TO SLEEP WITH ANGER is only his third feature, after KILLER OF SHEEP (1978) and MY BROTHER'S WEDDING (1983).

The life of South Los Angeles inhabitants Gideon and Suzie (Butler and Alice) starts to unravel when an old friend from the South, Harry (Glover) blows in one day, out of hospitality and bonhomie, they invite Harry to stay as long as he wishes. After backhanded remarks questioning the philanthropic work of Gideon and Suzie's elder son Junior (Lumbly) and his wife Pat (McGee), who is gravid with a baby number two, Harry finds his perfect target in Gideon and Suzie's younger son Samuel aka. Baby Brother (Brooks), whose immaturity, trivial grievance and maladaptive fatherhood gives the access of Harry's macho, wheedling male-bonding of going back to the South, which brings tension between Baby Brother and his family, especially with his wife Linda (Ralph), who is haplessly juggling between her career and traditional drudgery assigned to a wife, child-rearing and domestic chores.

Bad omen foreshadows Harry's arrival, the opening surreal self-combusted metaphor and the breaking of Gideon's charm all presage that it is a hostage to fortune to allow Harry overstaying his welcome. In Burnett's progressive thinking, there isn't much gray zone in the tradition versus urbanization tug-of-war, Harry, an incarnation of the vileness of a hidebound mindset (characterized by male chauvinism and superstition), is a menace with an elusive ulterior motive, and Danny Glover submerses deeply into Harry's dark side with a simian, hail-fellow-well-met expansiveness that is only betrayed by his piercing, menacing glint, shrouded in a mystical aura, he is mesmeric enough to hold our attention, but we have no idea what is he up to, because gradually Harry is reduced to a symbol, an unequivocal bad influence, which makes his comeuppance a bit blunt, if there is any redeeming feature in him, it is totally under our radar.

Above all, TO SLEEP WITH ANGER is an ensemble piece, great performances are actualized, barring the top-billing Glover, also by its distaff players: Mary Alice, who is not just a devoted wife, a capable ob-gyn doctor, but also a witty and sensible mother, and knows how to live up to be the pillar of the household when the crunch befalls; Sheryl Lee Ralph, whose suffering wife of a man-child is mostly poignant, and Ethel Ayler, who plays Hattie, an old acquaintance whose newborn faith projects a searing antagonism against Harry even before he reveals his true colors. Good impression is dwindled on the man's front, Paul Butler's Gideon is taken to his bed most of the time, Carl Lumbly is prone to be an empty vessel (by making the most noise) and Richard Brooks has the juiciest role, but is squandered by a script which portrays him as the good-for-nothing every has to condone with.

That said, TO SLEEP WITH ANGER deserves to be seen by a larger demography (it is a 4-times Independent Spirit winner if that doesn't mean nothing), for its steady deconstruction-and-reconstruction of familial bonds, for its unpretentious ethnic portrayal, and most prominently, for Burnett's unorthodox, pragmatic perspective on African-Americans' assimilation and adjustment in a modern society.

For the last several visits to the video store, I've been drawn to this film, but it wasn't until a few days ago that I finally rented it. And I'm really glad I did.

This film glows with delicately-drawn character studies. It is a testament to the effectiveness of subtle storytelling. The story is good, and the characters are gentle but passionate. They are middle class folks who live in a pleasant neighborhood in LA. They have left the hardscrabble life of the South -- with all the attendant superstitions and fears -- behind. Or so they hope...

The responses that the characters have to the presence of evil in their midst are refreshing and true. Though the film is subtle, it never drags, gets sentimental, or sloshes into easy cliches.

Danny Glover is wonderful, but so are most of the other actors. Oh, it's about family, but in a way that attracts us. There are no tried and true gimmicks, no diseases du jour, no soapy interludes. Just people. Doing the best they can. They are sometimes funny, sometimes foolish, sometimes predictable. One thing we notice: they can seem excessively patient with out-of- town visitors...

One good role for Danny Glover can erase the memory of several 'Lethal Weapon' and 'Predator' sequels, but it took a small, independently produced feature to bring the best out of one of Hollywood's hardest working actors. In this modest comedy Glover plays an enigmatic travelin' man named Harry, arriving unannounced at the home of some old friends and adding a subtle tension to the domestic friction already eroding three generations of family ties. But the trouble with Harry is less what he is than what he represents: the ghost of old traditions lurking in the cultural closet, and for a family already sensitive to portents and omens he might be the embodiment of all their superstitions. Writer director Charles Burnett keeps the viewer on guard with his elusive plot and complex characters, but the film is understated almost to a fault. The metaphors and hidden meanings (better suited to a stage play) help create a portentous mood, but in the end leave a lot unexplained.

What a strange, powerful, unsettling and unique film. If you want to experience the tingling of terror, than over the course of 97 minutes becomes more and more apparent, this might be the film for you. Some of it is more ambition than execution. Sometimes it tries to be a bit too profound, and some of the acting is a bit low key, but I have never seen anything like this in my life.

We first she him in the shape of an old friend. We hear a knock on the door and in comes Harry, the family friend who hasn't set a foot in the town for 30 years. He makes it clear that he was heading somewhere else, but needed a rest after a long bus ride. The old married couple invites him to stay, but our friend Harry never leave. He seems so friendly, but one on one he can make the most unsettling remarks that would crawl under the skin of anybody.

His past could very well be covered with blood, and his present surroundings starts to descend into hell. Danny Glover plays the magnetic and devilish persona, and this is certainly his magnum opus. Never seen such an enigmatic and bigger than life performance from him, and few could match it. Some become his disciples, others look at his with hate. It's built around, or perhaps within the mystique between old folklore, superstition and religion Some of it is slightly simple minded. And it's allusions to the devil and the battle between good and evil might seem a tad forced. But this is certainly one for the books.