Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Shaft (2000)

“It’s my duty to please that booty.”  One must love the brilliant writing of 2000’s Shaft sequel…or not.  I think I am in good company in saying that it is more than ok to think this movie is much more ridiculous than the first one; in fact, it enters an entirely different level.  I’m not sure what exactly it does in terms of blaxploitation, whereas 1971’s version made its intent very clear.  That being said, this film had potential.  Christopher Null, founder of filmcritic.com states that “the update could have been a lot of fun -- a modern-day John Shaft as tragic hero in a corrupt and oppressive NYPD,” and he’s right.  Generally sequels of action films are not complete failures, but as Null says, “If it wasn't called Shaft, no one would see this film.”
So why, aside from the pitiful lines, is this film so stupid?  The answer lies in many aspects.  First of all, some elements of fantasy can ease their way into films such as these.  For example, the audience will probably let a few unrealistic shots or fighting sequences slide if done properly, but this film crosses all lines.  It’s so unrealistic it cannot be taken seriously, which is probably the angle the director should have went with, but instead the movie attempts to be sincere, which only makes the audience laugh more.  Are we really expected to believe a man can jump through not one but two windows, not to mention the fact that they are in two separate buildings, and walk away without a single cut?  Are we supposed to believe that two cops will turn on their team and help a Mexican gang leader kill a witness for a mere $10,000?  Or that the gang leader will do it for $40,000, not in cash but jewelry to be cashed in?  The 1971 version had Bumpy paying the men $10,000 each, double for Shaft, to bring his daughter back to him.  This was 30 years ago. 
It’s not only the context of the film, but it’s the characters as well.  One of the things that made the original Shaft so cool was that he was a private eye; he was in between the law.  When this movie begins, Shaft is a detective, and one about to lose his job at that, yet manages to keep it for two more years.  He then quits, just before completing the biggest case of his life.  Sure, he now is protected by the police without the limitations, but I wonder why he chooses to search for Diane on his own without the aide provided by a police department, and for that matter, why did he wait two years to thoroughly search for the only eyewitness; the key to solving the case?  Shaft may know how to mess with people, but I certainly don’t think he’s the smartest guy, nor the guy “everyone wants to be.”
One cannot talk about this film without mentioning the music in it.  Of course, the 1971 version’s score was amazing, and rightly winning awards.  This version incorporates the original score, but it just doesn’t fit as well as it did the first time around.  The opening fit, however when paired with sexual imagery, it did not have as strong of an opening sequence as the original.  The music also contributed to discontinuity.  One scene in particular stands out; when Peoples and his men were running to his cars fast paced Latino music way playing, but then abruptly transitioning to the scene in the apartment with Diane, and slow, cheesy music was now playing.  It seemed like it was trying to be humorous, yet in was in the middle of a suspenseful sequence; the very climax of the movie.
While the original made prominent statements about race and culture, this film had less of a message.  Shaft is the obvious hero in both films, even though he is unorthodox, but we’re still rooting for him to win.  It’s the case of the “bad” guys that seems to be a bit blurred in the original, but for good cause.  It brings the focus on Shaft, and the fact that he’s fighting for what he thinks is right.  It’s for his own morals and values, and has nothing to do with being employed by the police department.  In the remake, we could not have a much more clear cut bad guy.  From the beginning, we know exactly who we are fighting against, and although Shaft probably would do something about this no matter what, he has to take a stance because of his job as a detective.  Making Peoples a prominent villain seems to knock the Hispanic community almost in an effort to raise the black community above them.  They also throw around f-bombs like none other and have the occasional n-word slip throughout the film.  If the NAACP had concerns about the blaxploitation used in the original, I can only imagine their views on this film.

3 comments:

  1. In viewing the film, I hadn't thought much about how ridiculous it was, but I have to agree with all of the points and examples that you've brought up. This film is a failed attempt to live up to its predecessor, and it has failed quite miserably. Even the incorporation of some of the original soundtrack, as you mentioned, seems inexpertly placed and no longer fitting for the times. Because this movie was set in the time it was made (late 20th century/early 21st), rather than in the 70's, the one attempt at 70's style dialogue--Shaft's "I dig it" or something of that sort--seems out of place and tacky. Another thing you mentioned that I also believed was very important is the treatment of Hispanics in this film. I believe that by involving another racial minority into the story, Singleton had an incredible opportunity to further comment on racism in a continuation of blaxploitation cinema. On the contrary, he simply degraded this new minority and downplayed the issue of race, further showing a disrespect for the essence of the original Shaft.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with you when you talk about the soundtrack not being as effective for this film like it was in the original. The opening scene was not as effective either. When the song was played during the opening scene in the original Shaft we got a look into the character right away whereas in the second movie it just showed a picture of him. I also thought your point about the "bad guys" was interesting. It is very easy to point out the villains in the second movie but not so much in the original. I think this idea made it easier to understand Shafts character and made it easier to see the arguments made about race in the original Shaft.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You made a very important point about validity within the new Shaft film: "Are we supposed to believe that two cops will turn on their team and help a Mexican gang leader kill a witness for a mere $10,000? Or that the gang leader will do it for $40,000, not in cash but jewelry to be cashed in? The 1971 version had Bumpy paying the men $10,000 each, double for Shaft, to bring his daughter back to him. This was 30 years ago." This is so true, although I hadn't even thought of it. For the new Shaft, the amount of money should have tripled. This was a great detail that you pointed out.

    ReplyDelete