Eric D. Snider

Miracle at St. Anna

Movie Review

"Miracle at St. Anna"

Review by Eric D. Snider

Grade: B

Rating: R

Released: Friday, September 26, 2008

Directed by:

Cast:

Spike Lee doesn't do himself any favors by being such a strident, humorless jackass in real life, but he can sure make a good movie when he wants to. "Miracle at St. Anna," based on a novel by James McBride, is an accomplished, powerful World War II drama with elements of "Saving Private Ryan," magical realism (is that a ghost talking to that boy?), and a thousand other war-is-hell pictures. It's unusually ambitious for Lee, and though it has a significant flaw that I'll get to later, it remains a worthy entry in the canon of battlefield epics.

The primary setting is Tuscany, Italy, in 1944, where four black American soldiers are separated from their unit and stranded behind enemy lines. Holed up in a small village, their leader, Stamps (Derek Luke), manages to make radio contact with his racist captain (Walton Goggins), who tells them to make the best of the situation by capturing a German soldier and interrogating him about a rumored surprised attack. Someone will be there to extract the four soldiers in a couple days.

In the meantime, Stamps and Bishop (Michael Ealy), one of his group, both have eyes on Renata (Valentina Cervi), a beautiful local woman whose family has given the soldiers a place to stay. A third soldier, Hector (Laz Alonso), speaks enough Italian to communicate with the locals, and Renata speaks some English. The fourth soldier is Sam Train (Omar Benson Miller), a hulking, gentle, simple-minded man who rescued an injured Italian boy (Matteo Sciabordi) and has appointed himself as his protector.

There are stereotypes here, both ethnic (Train is the kind of big dummy who yells "Lawdy lawd!" when things go awry) and war-movie (in a quiet moment, someone asks, "Why you think God allows this killing all over the world?"). But over time, three of the four soldiers are established as three-dimensional characters -- the exception being Stamps, who remains inscrutably stoic (though likable nonetheless).

What's more, the story grows impressively deeper and more complex as it unfolds. The Nazis, the Italians, and the Italian resistance movement are all involved. There are mysteries relating to the injured boy's home village and what happened there. All the characters speak the language they ought to speak (with subtitles, where necessary), adding a layer of authenticity to the well-researched, well-designed production.

Perhaps most significantly, while the focus is sometimes on the American soldiers' race, Lee's tone is never preachy or off-putting. The four men's attitudes on race relations are honest, and they vary from one man to another. The fact is, they're freer in Italy than they were back in the American South, and if a flashback to an ugly incident at a redneck-owned diner lays it on a little thick, you can overlook it in light of the film's more elegant sequences.

Consider this: These guys volunteered to fight for, and possibly die for, a country that subjugates them. Wouldn't that steam you just a little if you were in their shoes? "Miracle at St. Anna" makes it hard not to consider these men's situation -- which, when you think about it, is what all good movies seek to do.

The significant flaw that I alluded to earlier pertains to the scenes at the beginning and end, which are set in 1983 and '84, with one of the surviving soldiers encountering an old enemy. This framing story is possibly unnecessary (the film is already more than 2 1/2 hours long, you know) and definitely corny. The final scenes are ridiculous enough, bafflingly so, to reduce my estimation of the whole enterprise. Lee took a big gamble, and it failed completely.

But the real film, the 130 minutes or so set in 1944, is exciting, exhausting, and emotionally engaging. This might be the most accessible and skillful work of Lee's career, and I'm glad to see it.

Grade: B

Rated R, a fair amount of graphic war violence, some harsh profanity, some nudity, brief sexuality

2 hrs., 46 min.

Digg! Stumble It!

This item has 3 comments

  1. Sharon says:

    I just saw this movie and it was wrenching. The experience of feeling like being in the actual scenes of violence and war horror was very disturbing and upsetting. I suppose this means it was well done. I found the plot confusing to follow much of the time. It was good in that some of the characters were knowable and sympathetic. I wonder what the "miracle" at St. Anna was supposed to be. What I saw was a massacre at St. Anna. Maybe I missed something. I did have my eyes and ears closed and covered much of the time to not see the blood and gore and hear the explosions. I feel that the movies we have available to see these days are mainly full of killing and explosions and more killing and more explosions, or sadistic violence such as portrayed in the so-called hit "The Dark Knight". That was so horrendous and absolutely worthless that I had to leave after about 20 minutes. This movie by Spike Lee at least has some socially-redeeming factor in the exposure of the racist attitudes and behaviors at the time of the film, and it was appropriately set in the context of violence that was real in that time. I understand the purpose of making the brave and real contribution of black soldiers in the war known. I guess I'm talking about two different things: The experience of witnessing this film as itself, and the way it fits in with the other movies I've seen over the last few years. If it weren't for the constant battering of my sensibilities as a moviegoer, and this film were seen outside of that context, my response to it would probably be more appreciative. My gut reaction now is "too much bang-bang-bang and not enough thinking and talking and relating". And, I ask again, if you know, what was the Miracle at St. Anna supposed to be?

  2. Jacob says:

    And I want to ask you, Sharon, in what way is "The Dark Knight" (which I haven't actually seen, lest you believe I'm defending a film I like -- because the violence, etc. was pretty obviously going to be there) only a 'so-called hit'? Aren't those things pretty objective, given it's receipts and more than apparent popularity?

  3. Russ says:

    Jacob: It's because she personally didn't like it, thus it's not a hit.

    Sharon: at least war violence isn't as painful to watch as trying to read that wall of text was.

    Sex & Violence exist, we shouldn't try to ignore them by closing our eyes. Sure there are the monstrosities such as Transformers 2. But there are also painfully realistic movies that we should applaud for not censuring themselves just because history or the fictional story were a little violent.

Add your comment:

The following HTML elements are allowed: <span class="spoiler">content</span>, <strong>, <em>, <a>, and <img>.

Before posting, please read the rules.


Subscription Center

Eric D. Snider's "Snide Remarks"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly humor column, "Snide Remarks." For more information, go here.

Subscribe

Eric D. Snider's "In the Dark"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly movie-review e-zine. For more information on it, go here.

Subscribe
 
Visit Jeff J. Snider's website