In general I give this film rather high marks. It does a very good job of portraying the resentment toward the Japanese after World War II, as well as the general racism against Asians in that area at that time. I was particularly impressed with the courtroom scene where a White female landowner (I suppose she saw herself as a "real American") demonstrates her prejudice against foreigners, even though she herself had a strong foreign accent.
I saw this film on cable when it first came to television, and now again a dozen years later. When I first saw the film I was impressed with young Ethan Hawke. I haven't been very impressed with him since.
I am not a big fan of flashbacks, although they have their place. Some directors rely on them way too much, and that is evident in this film. I found it made the story a bit confusing in parts. And I had to laugh at one of our reviewers who said the story couldn't be told in sequence. Really? A story that occurs in sequence can't be told in sequence? This film has SOME flashbacks for the sake of having flashbacks.
The cinematography here is excellent, and some scenes are particularly memorable. The rounding up of the Japanese in order to send them to relocation camps is a haunting sequence.
As good as the "round up" sequence was, PARTS of the courtroom scenes were equally bad. Key testimony was quite good, but to show the blur of the trial, there were lousy slow motion scenes with muffled sounds. I was not impressed.
As mentioned, Ethan Hawke was very good here as the young newspaper man struggling with idealism. James Cromwell was very good as the judge, in part because in his career you never quite knew whether he was going to be the good guy or the bad guy. Richard Jenkins is not a handsome guy, which is probably why he is so underrated as an actor; he does very nicely here as the sheriff. A highlight of the film is Max von Sydow as the defense attorney!!! And Rick Yune was appropriately stoic as the young Japanese man on trail.
This is a darned good film, despite a few faults. Recommended, though it didn't end up on my DVD shelf.
I saw this film on cable when it first came to television, and now again a dozen years later. When I first saw the film I was impressed with young Ethan Hawke. I haven't been very impressed with him since.
I am not a big fan of flashbacks, although they have their place. Some directors rely on them way too much, and that is evident in this film. I found it made the story a bit confusing in parts. And I had to laugh at one of our reviewers who said the story couldn't be told in sequence. Really? A story that occurs in sequence can't be told in sequence? This film has SOME flashbacks for the sake of having flashbacks.
The cinematography here is excellent, and some scenes are particularly memorable. The rounding up of the Japanese in order to send them to relocation camps is a haunting sequence.
As good as the "round up" sequence was, PARTS of the courtroom scenes were equally bad. Key testimony was quite good, but to show the blur of the trial, there were lousy slow motion scenes with muffled sounds. I was not impressed.
As mentioned, Ethan Hawke was very good here as the young newspaper man struggling with idealism. James Cromwell was very good as the judge, in part because in his career you never quite knew whether he was going to be the good guy or the bad guy. Richard Jenkins is not a handsome guy, which is probably why he is so underrated as an actor; he does very nicely here as the sheriff. A highlight of the film is Max von Sydow as the defense attorney!!! And Rick Yune was appropriately stoic as the young Japanese man on trail.
This is a darned good film, despite a few faults. Recommended, though it didn't end up on my DVD shelf.