Miracle at St. Anna

Miracle at St. Anna follows four black soldiers of the all-black 92nd Infantry Division who get trapped near a small Tuscan village on the Gothic Line during the Italian Campaign of World War II after one of them risks his life to save an Italian boy.

In my last review of Milk, I discussed a historic movie with an agenda. In Milk, the true story was placed in defense to current events as a political statement with honorable intent. In Miracle at St. Anna, Spike Lee presents his agenda in defense to the lack of portrayal of Blacks in World War II films. Unfortunately, though it may be a fact that there are no representations of Blacks in war films, and there are indeed many untold stories of their heroism, this portrayal of their sacrifice plays it to shame. Clint Eastwood made two films which juxtaposed both sides of the same WWII story in Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. Spike Lee publicly criticized Eastwood for not having a single African American in both films, even though they were a very real and important part of the war. Eastwood never released a response, and rightfully so. It was not only a shameful way to plug his own movie, but Spike Lee in this fashion pushed in what he thought was relevant to a story that didn't involve or even contain any blacks within it. It would be like criticizing Spike Lee for not having any whites good at basketball in He got Game. Seems racist doesn't it? It is an important step in stopping racism to stop bringing attention to the fact that there is racism when it is negligible. Personally I think this was an attention-seeking move by Lee in order to plug his own movie.

The movie, by the way is a horrid representation of what Lee was going for. Todd Gilchrist made a great point by revealing that "By choosing for his definitive portrait a tale based on a fictional novel rather than an actual true story, Lee has undermined his own efforts to properly depict the wartime experience for WWII-era blacks." Jules Brenner says, "There are endearing moments but we're in a Spike Lee world where it's okay to interject his "black vs. the privileged white-man" lecture time and again to the detriment of the film."

The movie seems like an appropriate piece for prime time made for TV that should have premiered on BET.

If Lee truly wanted to represent and honor the Buffalo Soldiers of WWII, why did he use a work of fiction to manifest true events in history? The film came under controversy as Wikipedia states:

Protests were scheduled for the film's Italian premiere in Viareggio, Italy, by unspecified organizations resulting from the plot line of a partisan collaborating with the Nazis. This runs directly counter to the accepted Italian version of events, which is that the slaughter was not a reprisal but an unprovoked act of brutality and that the hunt for partisans was a pretext. Giovanni Cipollini, deputy head of Anpi, said the film was a “false reconstruction” and a “travesty of history”. However, Lee unrepentant, stated “I am not apologizing.” He told Italians there was “a lot about your history you have yet to come to grips with. This film is our interpretation, and I stand behind it." McBride, the novel's author, stated: "As a black American, I understand what it’s like for someone to tell your history...unfortunately, the history of World War Two here in Italy is ours as well, and this was the best I could do...it is, after all, a work of fiction.”

Spike Lee, although he has made pieces of cinema that reveal the African American perspective in flawless forms both fiction (Do the right thing) and has successful represented African American history as well (Malcolm X), this film is by far one of Lee's greatest shortcomings next to Ray Allen's acting in He Got Game. Sean Gandert points out why, perhaps the movie seems like a conflict of interest "The combination of Lee's concerns for his characters' depictions with Disney's concerns for mass-market appeal ends up pleasing no one." The film seems about an hour too long and forgive me as a movie critic, but i fast forwarded a chunk in the middle, don't blame me though I"m no Roeper, I'm a common viewer telling you exactly what you would have done. Peter Rainer says of the film's length "Clocking in at 160 minutes, this interminable movie comes across like a rough cut. Perhaps Lee believed its length would give it gravitas. The opposite is true."

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 34% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating

I was happy to see after watching the film that people agreed with me. I thought for a second that I was being racist by not liking the film, however many shared the same sentiments with me that it was an overbearing piece of fiction attempting to portray the realities of war. Although I am a fan of Derek Luke, and he does a great job delivering his role, the story itself is long, dry and uneventful. I immediately went to look at many parts of the film that didn't seem to make sense. Ask ten people who've seen this movie what the title's "miracle" is referring to, and you'll get a couple of different guesses and a whole lot of blank stares and shrugs. The ending is definitely going for tears, but I couldn't help but laugh. Do not see this film.