I believe that the vast majority of ordinary moviegoers read reviews for one single purpose: to find out if they should watch the film. Readers of these lines, I will not recommend viewing the picture of “Detroit”, because I do not see any reason to spend almost two and a half hours of my time on this useless occupation. This product is not for the Russian viewer, but purely for domestic American use. All these disagreements about racism on this side of the ocean are already pretty much nagging. Yes, we already understood a long time ago all of their black and white sponge-skin. To delve into endless details to us to anything. Although on this topic there are still very interesting work. Of the latter, I would have noted the “hidden figures” of Ted Melfi. And “Dzhango liberated” in general a masterpiece, although very specific, Tarantino, after all. He and the “Ghoulish eight” interracial jokes filed with an unusual perspective. The praised “Fences” of Denzel Washington – not even a movie at all, are full theatrical.
It so happened that I first watched the movie “Detroit”, and only then bothered to find out who took it. Strongly surprised. It turns out that the white woman is Kathryn Bigelow. Of course, this lady deserves all due respect. She is the first female director in history to receive an Oscar (the film “The Lord of the Storm”, 2008). Absolutely atypical blonde. Pink snot in her work is completely absent: only hardcore – in her filmography aggressive, tough fighters, military dramas and a western with elements of horror. “At the crest of the wave” I liked very much in my time. But the “K-12” – a controversial thing, she, among other things, about the feat of Soviet (!) Submariners, there is still Harrison Ford in the title role. I do not under any circumstances question the merit of Kathryn Bigelow. Yet such a thought crept in: she was a little opportunist. This quality is often harmed by art, although the dividends are substantial. Therefore, to condemn it is not worth it.
This time in the spotlight of Catherine Bigelow Detroit in 1967. Here, a full-scale riot on interracial soil flares up – pogroms, looting, police chaos. Just want to warn especially anxious guardians of political correctness: when I use the word “Negro”, it means only a person of a Negroid race, in full accordance with the traditions of the Russian language, no negative sense, everything is absolutely neutral. And terms like “African American” let bother English-language authors, they have a completely different audience. “Europeoid” is a word inconvenient in pronunciation and writing, “white” sounds simply logical and without binding to a part of the world.
So, Detroit, 1967. Negroes against whites. Conflict serious – fist fight, shooting, fires. A real war. But who is right, who is to blame – you will not understand. Both are good, and others. In the cartoon right after the initial credits we were described the situation. After the First World War, several million Negroes moved from the southern states of the USA to the north. They were attracted to jobs in industrial enterprises. And after the Second World War, a massive exodus of white people from the central regions of Detroit to the outskirts of the city began. The black population concentrated in several overcrowded areas, which were heavily patrolled by policemen, mostly white. This created the prerequisites for the inevitable interracial riots, the beginning of which was only a matter of time. That’s it, and you could put a point. I do not want to watch all this! But I’ll have to …
With the main characters of the picture of us almost do not introduce. Just a dozen people are in the midst of these events. White – cops and two prostitutes, Negroes – the guard of the grocery store, employees and hotel guests, among whom are two musicians of the vocal group “The Dramatics” (real, it still exists). The plot of the plot is that one of the hotel employees shoots at the policemen patrolling the street from a toy pistol. The cops, having decided that they are being fired by a sniper, storm the hotel and begin to interrogate the people who are there: who and from what weapons did they shoot at law enforcement officers? Filmed all with a shaking camera, the head is spinning already on the fifteenth minute. The idea of the authors is clear: we are immersed in what is happening. But there is terribly uncomfortable, I want to run away, hide. Would you risk taking part in such a batrahomyomahia? To whom do we sympathize: mice or frogs? Both sides of the conflict behave aggressively before idiocy. There are those who show some restraint, but it does not become anybody anyway.
The culmination scene is terribly tight. This is the main mistake of the director. The development of the plot is hopelessly stalling, trampling on the spot, there is a desire to click on the rewind. And better – the button “stop”. What happens to the heroes on, is not at all interesting, none of them cause the slightest sympathy. A true drama? But does art have to fully reproduce reality? Pseudo-documentalism, quasi-realism, have been overwhelmed lately by movie screens. What for? Leave me the magic of the movie! Austerity