fbpx

The Horror of Detroit

Detroit, the new film from Oscar-winning director Kathryn Bigelow (2009’s The Hurt Locker), is actually three films. The first is a documentary-style dramatization of racial tensions in Detroit in 1967 that led to riots and fatalities. The second film is a horror movie in the style of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974). The third film is a standard courtroom drama.

Unfortunately, Detroit, which is powerful for its first half hour, sinks under the weight of those second and third elements.

Detroit is based on real events. In July 1967, Motor City police raided an unlicensed, after-hours bar on the city’s Near West Side. The arrests were a tipping point in a city that had been simmering with racial tensions for years, if not decades. Angry African Americans pelted police vehicles with bottles, setting off a riot that resulted in the calling in of the National Guard and state troopers. The lives of 43 people were lost in four days of chaos.

The first act, depicting the riot itself, is fantastic. Bigelow, writer Mark Boal, and cinematographer Barry Ackroyd create a collage of rapid-fire editing, strong performances, and newsreel footage to create an atmosphere of pungent anarchy. It is in this section that we are introduced to Officer Krauss (Will Poulter), a reckless, racist, and immature white cop who shoots a black looter in the back. Pale, skinny and freckled, Krauss is Howdy Doody by way of Satan. Told that he will be charged with murder for the shooting, he feebly says, “I may have clipped the guy”—and he’s then allowed back out on the street. With the city in chaos, every available officer is needed. One calm presence, black security guard Melvin Dismukes (John Boyega), tries to act as a mediator between the National Guard and the rioters.

After the first hour, Detroit abruptly shifts tone. We see an act, the Dramatics, about to go on at Detroit’s legendary Fox Theater, when they and lead singer Larry Reed (Algee Smith) are prevented by police from taking the stage. It’s just not safe. Larry and his friend Fred Temple (Jacob Latimore) take refuge at the nearby Algiers Motel, where they meet two white women, Karen (Kaitlyn Dever) and Julie (Hannah Murray). Larry and Fred take Karen and Julie to party in the room of Carl (Jason Mitchell), where they are joined by others.

These scenes are poignant and funny as the men praise jazz god John Coltrane and rib each other about having white girls there, and where Karen and Larry share an interracial kiss—no small matter in 1967. But the situation explodes when, as a joke, Carl hangs a starter pistol out the window and fires. Nearby police and the National Guard think it’s a sniper, and pretty soon Detroit cops, led by Officer Krauss, invade the motel.

Detroit then downshifts to an almost unbearably slow pace. It has entered its B horror movie phase, specifically that of the so-called “torture porn” sub-genre. Films like Saw (2004) and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre feature a protagonist trapped in a sealed environment that’s controlled by a psychopath. Locked down in the motel with Officer Krauss and his feckless fellow cops, characters in Detroit are shot, pummeled with rifle buts, slapped, chocked and stabbed by police. The violence is graphic and the dialogue, particularly Krauss’s, is cartoonish (“Why are you with a black man? What’s wrong with us?”).

One gets the sense that Bigelow is trying to atone for her film Zero Dark Thirty (2013), which was criticized in the media for arguing that torture provided useful intelligence on Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts, and helped track the terrorist down. Detroit looks to be the counterargument: Torture does not work. The filmmakers use their every tool to make that case.

In Bigelow’s defense, the actual events at the Algiers Motel were plenty bad. Police shot and killed three black civilians—Carl Cooper, Aubrey Pollard, and Fred Temple—and severely beat nine others. But Bigelow seems to be intent on wallowing in the violence as a form of virtue-signaling. It’s not enough to show the police as dense, racist, and trigger-happy; in long, drawn-out scenes, they have to embody undiluted cruelty and sadism.

By the time Detroit shifts from the motel to the court case that followed, there’s not enough time left to compellingly conclude the story—and besides, most of the audience will probably feel exhausted from watching the carnage that has preceded. The actor John Krasinski is out of place as a defense attorney who gets Krauss and the other officers off. There follows a coda revealing what happened in real life to the rest of the characters. The film regains some of its humanity, but it’s too little too late. Larry Reed was so traumatized by events at the Algiers that he left the Dramatics to lead a church choir, which he still conducts to this day.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on August 04, 2017 at 09:53:47 am

Excellent review. Krauss would seem more the part of Barney Fife.

You can quite imagine, in 1967, the nation’s wounds still scarring over from the events of JFK in Dallas, re-opening and becoming infected in the effuses of Vietnam that were everyday clogging-up more of the airways and beginning to run-over the rims of our bowled television screens, (bringing on its tides, worst things that would fall upon on our shores in 1968), how more black & white images from Detroit did in fact seem surrealistically film noir.

When seen from that vantage, it becomes understandable, in producing a film in a culture where violent images are commonplace and produce only desensitized yawns from 21st century audiences, that in order to recreate a stir in them something nearing the level of horror experienced by contemporaries to the events in Detroit in 1967, why it would be necessary to present greatly exaggerated and " long, drawn-out scenes, [that] embody undiluted cruelty and sadism".

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on August 04, 2017 at 10:00:32 am

Only in Hollywood is mining comic book characters and 50 year old race riots considered "art."

read full comment
Image of Mark Pulliam
Mark Pulliam
on August 04, 2017 at 13:48:23 pm

For the past 2 years I have been occupied studying the Atlantic Slave Trade in the West from 1500 to today. Is it not obvious by observation one does not have a "race problem" in a mono-racial society.

Final separation of the races is the end to which the race issue is heading by it's own force and momentum. Strange that Black intellectual elite has not awaken to this inexorable trend, but are forever excoriating everyone for the condition of Blacks everywhere--or demanding reparations or unctuously bewailing discrimination.

It turns out to be a question of numbers. Of 12,500,000 African slaves brought to the west only 303,000 of that number debarked on North American soil with no possible way to return home. That event begins the "race problem" we have today. Here's why! We simply imported too few slaves! That's it!! Why didn't I grasp that earlier in my studies. It is not an oversimplification of a monumental problem. It's clear as daylight. I can see now that pressing for diversity and equality is a myth and moral pose by its advocates. The Brown decision, civil rights, affirmative action, and all manner of accommodation by the white establishment to mollify Blacks is commendable and moral as it reflects well on the core on one's humanity to be fair, but it is proving misguided. Ironically ,it will only make the race problem ever more difficult to solve, if at all. Only a change in numbers by segregation or Nationalization will effectively solve the race problem if that is the objective. For example. There is no plea for race diversity or segregation or forever constant complaining of discrimination in Brazil where 4,,000,000 slaves were imported The "people of color", as the quaint expression has it, are now the majority. QED

If you think about it, as I have for years, you will finally come to understand the essential core of the problem by four simple words applicable in the context of its time:

Slavery, Yes!...Negroes...No!

That cryptic summary means slavery was essential to the mode of production in the days of pre-industrialization and we got rid of it as soon as the economic system changed.. But we didn't want negroes--too bad they could not have been all white. Point to where now are the white slaves that preceded the black? In New York City, in 2017, 400 years later, are there still segregated residential areas and schools--for the most part.? Why?

I hope my comment provides some issues that need discussion to effect closure for everyone is dissatisfied with race issues in our unfortunately multi-racial society, but I doubt it as so misinformed are most people, black and white. Ignorance, not race, is the tragedy!

read full comment
Image of Martin Kessler
Martin Kessler

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.