ILNews

Hammerle On … 'Belle,' 'Locke'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

“Belle”

Just like I noted in last year’s “12 Years a Slave,” director Amma Asante’s “Belle” forces all of us to relive a moment in history that we would rather forget.

With “Belle,” we revisit 1783 when England was forced to confront its embrace of slavery. It seems that a British ship stocked with slaves jettisoned them overboard under a fabricated excuse designed to collect insurance money. In the process, England had to look into its own soul, something that its rebellious colonies in North America were going to ignore for the next 80 years.

While the top jurist in England, Lord Mansfield, wrestled with an impending legal decision, he and his wife were also raising two nieces. One was Belle, a mixed-race daughter of a nephew who had died years earlier. In the process, Mansfield not only had to legally analyze the treatmen

hammerle-belle.jpg

t of blacks in the New World, but also the legal restrictions placed on those like his black niece living in England.

Tom Wilkinson and Emily Watson are stunning as Lord and Lady Mansfield. Though both were dedicated to following accepted legal standards, they witnessed firsthand how their niece, Belle, was treated like a second-class citizen in their own home.

The captivating Gugu Mbatha-Raw plays Belle, and she brings the same force to this film that Lupita Nyong’o did in her unforgettable, Oscar-winning performance in the above-referred to “12 Years a Slave.” Mbatha-Raw is as emotionally powerful as she is beautiful, and she tries to honor her adopted parents without abandoning her past.

In the process, she develops a powerful kinship with the Mansfield’s adopted white niece, Elizabeth. Poignantly played by Sarah Gadon, the two young girls reflect a future that England’s power brokers want to keep locked in a dark government basement.

Race issues in England are played out for all to see as the Mansfields interrelate socially with the Ashfords, a powerful family with more influence than they deserved. Miranda Richardson is startling as the hateful Lady Ashford, a woman who wants both a title and wealth for her two sons as long as it does not involve interaction with blacks. Her sons reflect her racism without apologies, and it is impossible to feel the slightest sympathy for any of them.

What stirs the film at its climax is the interrelationship of John Davinier, a committed son of a Vicar who is a budding lawyer, with the Mansfield family. Played with grace and style by Sam Reid, he is fighting to help Lord Mansfield understand the tyranny at the heart of slavery. In the process, he and Belle fall madly in love, and they join the struggle to find equality and themselves.

“Belle” is based on a true story, and I can only ask all of you to imagine if she had a descendent known today as Barack Obama. As I watch the startling amount of vitriol thrown at our president daily by the largely white male leaders of the opposition party, I wonder if Belle would have seen anything different than what existed in her day. While many of those who embrace “family values” condemn a president who is in a wonderful marriage raising two beautiful, intelligent daughters, they simultaneously embrace people like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh who have been married a combined seven times.

Belle was able to find a passionate man who was committed to her and a joint cause, but not everyone is that lucky. There are millions of young African-Americans like Belle who need assistance today, and it’s time for all of us to play a role.

“Locke”

With “Locke,” director Steven Knight conquers the shortcomings of Robert Redford’s performance in “All Is Lost.” Their similarity ends with the fact that there is but one character in each film.

Ivan Locke is played by the fantastic Tom Hardy, an actor that all of you should be following. An English actor of immense range, start with his performance as the maniacal Bane, the medically challenged villain in “The Dark Knight Rises” (2012).

In “Locke,” Hardy plays a happily married father of two who is the construction manager of the largest building project in England’s history. He leaves without notice to his boss or wife, going on a drive in his car for the entire film. He flirts with disaster as he wrestles with a sense of honor that comes close to devastating those around him.hammerle-locke.jpg
Seeing him only behind the wheel of his car, Locke is constantly receiving phone calls from both his job and home. As he tries to direct one of his employees to supervise the mammoth project he left behind, his immediate boss is progressively angered to the point of being reluctantly forced to fire Locke.

Locke fully understands the condemnable nature of his journey, but simply has to do what he perceives as decent and fair. As he talks intermittently with his horrified wife, he vacillates through a series of emotions that are synonymous with life’s journey. On the other hand, his wife is disgusted for increasingly obvious reasons.

Forced to acknowledge the ramifications of a regrettable mistake, Locke risks all that is dear to him. Condemn him if you will, but imagine if President Bill Clinton had shown the courage to simply admit his weakness concerning the young Monica Lewinsky and refused to deny the encounter and vilify her in the process. Maybe he would have benefitted had he gotten into a car and simply driven for a few hours to talk things over with an angry Hillary and his staff.

Say what you want about Ivan Locke, but he is no Bill Clinton.•

__________

Robert Hammerle practices criminal law in Indianapolis. When he is not in the courtroom or working diligently in his Pennsylvania Street office, Bob can likely be found at one of his favorite movie theaters watching and preparing to review the latest films. To read more of his reviews, visit www.bigmouthbobs.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT