Movie: Victoria and Abdul

Victoria and Abdul:  a movie “based upon real events . . . mostly” states the film’s opening text.  Victoria is Queen Victoria of England (Judi Dench) and Abdul is Abdul Karim (Ali Fazal), a Muslim Indian.  The story takes place between 1887 and 1901 during the last years of the Queen’s life.  Judi Dench as Queen Victoria is the reason to see this film.  She offers another remarkable performance.  The story begins with the arrival of Abdul, one of two Indians sent to the royal household to present the Queen with a ceremonial coin commemorating her Diamond Jubilee.  Abdul is instructed not to make eye contact with the Queen but he does.  The Queen takes note of his good looks and fine bearing, and a close mother/son relationship develops.  The opening scenes are presented with a light comedic touch, but you soon begin to wonder how much of the story is real as the relationship develops.  Abdul becomes the Queen’s munshi (teacher) as she learns Urdu and reads the Quran.  Abdul is portrayed as the person who provides the Queen with new vigor during the final years of her life.  The Queen’s staff, the political crowd that surrounds her and her son Edward VII/Bertie (Eddie Izzard), are quite displeased about the Queen’s interaction with Abdul.  The film’s presentation of Queen Victoria as having a progressive perspective on race and cultural relationships is not consistent with my understanding of the historical record.  The screenplay by Lee Hall makes a point of showing the racism that dominated Victorian society.  When Abdul’s wife and mother-in-law arrive at court wearing burqas, the antagonism towards Indians escalates.  Although the film directed by Stephen Frears never adopts a sanctimonious tone during its 112 minute span, its level of playfulness decreases.  I suspect the degree to which you like the film will depend upon your reaction to Abdul and whether you find his relationship with Queen Victoria believable.  Personally, I couldn’t shake off the “mostly” qualifier in the opening text.  Nevertheless, Judi Dench is on screen for a significant part of the film and so long as she is present, this film is one worth seeing.

 

Movie: Marshall

Marshall:  a courtroom drama based on a real case.  The year is 1941.  The place is Bridgeport, Connecticut.  The lead lawyer is Thurgood Marshall.  The movie is about the criminal trial against Joseph Spell (Sterling K. Brown), a chauffeur/butler employed by Eleanor Strubing (Kate Hudson), a wealthy white woman, whom Spell is accused of having raped and thrown off a bridge.  Chadwick Boseman, who is making a career playing famous Black men (Jackie Robinson, James Brown), is outstanding as a young Marshall.  The excellent script by Michael and Jacob Koskoff draws its courtroom scenes from newspaper accounts as no trial transcript exists.   The Spell case was reported in the mainstream press, including the New York Times.  It was a major case for the NAACP because, unlike most of Marshall’s cases, this one took place in the North.  The movie opens and closes with Marshall traveling by train from one town to another to defend black men.  Most of this 118 minute film focuses on how Marshall manages to defend an individual who would otherwise not have had any counsel.  The first step in the process is finding a licensed Connecticut attorney willing to take the case.  That attorney turns about to be a young insurance defense counsel named Sam Friedman (Joseph Gad).  A major reason why the film works is the interplay between Friedman and Marshall.   Despite the seriousness of the story, there are some delightful comedic scenes.  In the courtroom, the presiding judge (James Cromwell) is presented as being every bit as racist as one would expect a Southern judge to be in the 1940’s.  The movie also includes scenes showing the community’s reaction to Friedman defending a black man accused of rape.  An additional twist to this case arises from the fact that the Judge would not allow Marshall to speak in the courtroom.  This results in an unexpected courtroom dynamic because, as it happens, this  is Friedman’s first criminal jury trial.  The only scene that does not work is when Marshall and his wife are out at a Harlem nightclub with Langston Hughes, and particularly the short scene where Zora Hurston appears.  Showing Marshall having a life independent of his NAACP work is a good idea but limiting it to the interaction with Hughes would have been sufficient.  This, however is a minor shortcoming.  The film, directed by Reginald Hudlin, is excellent.  The characters come across as authentic and the dynamic between Joseph Spell and Eleanor Strubing make for a story worth telling.  In these interesting times, it’s good to be reminded while simultaneously being entertained just how overt the racism in this country was a mere 75 years ago.