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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT