the movieGOOMBA

2.5 GOOMBAS

So I've heard that the reason why Denzel Washington is good-looking is because his face is perfectly symmetrical, which makes it aesthetically pleasing to the eye. I can agree with that rational. I mean, he isn't overtly handsome (to me), but yet he's nice to look at - even when he plays a bad-ass gangster or a corrupt cop. However, something must be said about his performance in his most recent flick, The Great Debaters. His glaringly insensitive and distrustful portrayal of Melvin Tolson definitely made me see the ugly in Denzel.

Set in the 1930's and loosely based on a true story, the 'Great Debaters' are a group of young, educated individuals from the historically black Wiley College. Under the supervision and guidance of Melvin Tolson (Washington), four debaters are chosen for his elite team, James L. Farmer Jr., Henry Lowe, Samantha Brooke, and Hamilton Burgess. This film, produced by Harpo Productions, takes this team through one year of debate competitions with other black colleges in the South. After beating all notable schools in the area, Tolson begins to seek out white colleges to compete against, but in this heavily racist era, this is no easy feat. Throughout this film, their travels and experiences take them through a number of issues that affected the times (lynchings, racism, communism) and adolescence (first love, coming of age). This film also features Academy Award winning Actor Forest Whitaker.

I didn't like this movie. It was a jumble of political and social issues that were suppose to be facilitated by the plot, but actually became the side story to the plot. Or maybe they were suppose to be the side stories? I'm not quite sure . . . and this ambiguity does not bode well. There was just too much going on for it to be any good. It was a coming-of-age story, but then it wasn't. It was a educational film on racism, and then it was a period piece, and then it was a sports film. All these different aspects in a film, but yet all under-developed.

As for Washington's performance, the man is just good. However, his character contributed to the indecisiveness of the plot. He was a underground revolutionary, a Communist to be exact, and yet I couldn't quite tell if the film meant to portray this as a good thing or a bad thing. He had terrible character flaws. He liked to cheat in the debates. He wrote all of the arguments while the team did the research. He was insensitive and at times, cruel. He lies and creates uncomfortable tension, and yet he mentors these young minds and tells them to believe in themselves. He can be kind, but yet is terribly ruthless. He's such a huge contradiction that I can't see him as being a very good role model. So, though Washington gave depth and complexity to this multi-layered character, it deepened the obvious flaws in the already unfocused plot.

This could easily make the Hallmark Classics shelf, but not mine.