I preface this review by saying that my criticism is of the movie (art) made by renowned filmmaker Spike Lee and is in no way meant to undermine the importance of Malcolm X as a person or important historical figure.
Spike Lee’s critically acclaimed “masterpiece” chronicles the life of Malcolm X by closely following the text that Malcolm X himself dictated in The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which I have read. Spike Lee, a prominent voice for black people in American cinema, again shows the oppression that his race has undergone with movie Malcolm X (see Do the Right Thing, Bamboozled, etc.). No one should undermine the importance of Malcolm X and his contributions to equality. The philosophies that Malcolm X expresses may be inflammatory, controversial, profound, just, moral, name it for yourself, but they should not be overlooked.
My criticism of the movie lies not in its message but in the averageness of the portrayal of an importance historical figure. This movie falls among the standard bio-pics Ray, Walk the Line, Control, Alexander, and Ghandi (to name a few). What do all standard bio-pics have in common? Good performances. Denzel Washington as Malcolm X is no exception. Not only does he capture the mannerisms, he even looks like Malcolm X. Do accurate performances make a good movie? No.
The book, spoken directly by Malcolm X, offers critical personal testimony, clear authenticity, and insight into the mind and philosophies of a highly influential figure. The book is quite an achievement. It eloquently communicates the different stages of Malcolm X’s life- why he thought what he did and how he went about putting his ideas into practice. The movie adds nothing, and in fact, takes away from the complexity of his character. The movie is a simplification of a person (as most bio-pics are), a person that clearly the filmmaker admires and wants understood.
The movie simplifies Malcolm X’s life by showing easily dismissible stages of his life. At first, Malcolm X tries to be white by conking his hair, sleeping with a white woman, doing white drugs, and stealing (living like an animal), which he later learns is all part of white oppression. He has been taught to think that white is better and passively accepted this idea for the younger part of his life. In jail, he finds Allah and learns of freedom. Strictly following the book, Spike Lee creates scene after scene. What he looses is the insight into the mind and what I found most enlightening about the book- Islamic religion. Malcolm X, in his autobiography, tells what is it like to participate in this religion and how it led him to maturity. The book is a religious confession as well as black advocacy. The movie, on the other hand, shows Malcolm’s evolution but it fails to enter into Malcolm X’s mind in the way that the book does. This is one difference between cinema and books. Word can express inner thoughts better than images. If this were not the case, why are voice-overs so often used? And why hasn’t there been a stream-of-consciousness movie as inward and meandering as Ulysses (James Joyce)? Images restrict to the specific visual aspect, which can be an advantage or disadvantage. A picture of a dog shows a specific, individual dog, whereas the word dog summons up a different image in each individual’s mind, again showing the difference between words and images.
I would not compare the movie to the book as much as I do if the ultimate aim of each work differed. But Spike Lee does not deviate from the text. Undoubtedly, Spike Lee has an opinion on Malcolm X (he shows that he admires Malcolm X with the tribute at the end). But in the movie he does not consider even one of the many dimensions of Malcolm X. At one point, a police officer comments about Malcolm X saying, “that’s too much power for one man to have”. What power does he really have in an oppressive society? Has he really found the way to freedom? And aren’t these interesting elements to explore? An outsider like Spike Lee can make observations about Malcolm X that Malcolm X himself could not have made, such as his impact on society, or the similarities between Christian and Muslim beliefs (do these two groups really believe the same thing?). There are many missed opportunities because the filmmaker failed to insert his own ideas about Malcolm X (and ultimately about race) rather to create an accurate representation (which is not as accurate as the autobiography). I would rather get my facts from Malcolm X himself.
Spike Lee overlooks the most interesting elements of the movie. Black people shoot Malcolm X. Why would the black people do this? Doesn’t Lee have any speculations on this matter? The one point where Lee gives his own opinions, the tribute at the end, all the black children at school stand up and say “I am Malcolm X”. What commonalities do they have? Isn’t this an area to explore? I would like to know his opinion. A good artist will insert herself into her art. And thought Spike Lee literally inserts himself into the movie by playing a minor character, he does not use this to his advantage by showing the interplay of filmmaker and film character.
There are so many missed opportunities. But that happens when you create a standard bio-pic. Most ideas and, for that matter, most dimensions of a person are thrown out. Malcolm X is no exception. Its only merit is that it accurately shows the events of Malcolm X’s life.
~Kristen Gorlitz