Wow

Rating: 10/10 (12 July 2008)

When the credits started rolling after the film "American History X," the one word, the one feeling that I felt was: Wow. This is an amazing, powerful film.
One could quickly classify this as a film that deals with racism, but that is a misconception. "American History X" is about hate, and one man's journey from having it rule his life to realizing how pointless it is.
Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton) was the poster-boy for a white supremacist gang in California. Things changed after he was sent to prison for murder, and now he's trying to prevent his younger brother Danny (Edward Furlong) from going down the same path.
"American History X" is like the ultimate persuasive speech, both in what it achieves and how it's constructed. This powerful film tackles a complex and relevant subject head-on. But its construction as a piece of skilled rhetoric is genius. There's the set-up, addressing of both sides of the issue, then finally the explanation of the point that it wants to make. Director Tony Kaye deftly handles the material so that the subject matter, rather than directorial flair, is what hammers in the point. And he uses enough subtlety to make "American History X" seem more like a film than a piece of rhetoric.
What makes this film work so well is that it seeks to UNDERSTAND both sides of the issue. It doesn't humanize people who hate, and it certainly doesn't expect the audience to sympathize with them, but it explains why they hate. This makes for a more compelling argument because it allows for a more finely-tuned rebuttal. The fact that the skinheads, at least Derek Vinyard, are allowed to sound intelligent, gives a fresh look on an argument that if done any other way would give this film a "been there, done that" kind of feel.
Additionally, it gives insight into the sources of hate and how people like the skinheads become the frontrunners of such feelings. It offers a number of origins and introduces them in a number of ways.
This film wouldn't be as compelling and powerful had it not been for a cast filled with superior performances. Edward Norton received an Oscar nod for this role, and he earned it. This is easily his best performance. His character has a wide, dramatic arc and Norton never loses sight of the character. Edward Furlong is impressive as Danny. Furlong has been almost off the map since his star-making debut opposite Arnold Schwartzenegger and Linda Hamilton in "Terminator 2: Judgment Day." Here he makes it clear that he hasn't grown out of his acting ability. Beverly D'Angelo shows that she can act off of someone other than Chevy Chase (and in a hard-hitting drama, no less). Stacy Keach is suitably creepy and vile as Cameron, the man who helped Derek with his rise to "god" status amongst the skinheads, but Keach wisely never goes over the top. Elliot Gould, Fairuza Balk and Ethan Suplee (in an unexpectedly fine performance) are all in good form here.
The one person who gets no praise but deserves much is Avery Brooks. He's brilliant and at times equal to Norton. He fills the mentor role, but he knows this is not supposed to be a gentle performance a la Robin Williams in "Dead Poet's Society" (no ill-will towards Williams' role in that film); he's gritty and forceful and he fits right in. It's a shame that he didn't get an Oscar nod for his performance.
According to IMDb, director Tony Kaye claimed that Edward Norton altered the film so much to give himself an Oscar nod for his performance that Kaye wanted his name to be replaced by "Humpty Dumpty." He filed a $275 million lawsuit against the Director's Guild and New Line Cinema when he wasn't allowed to remove his name. Be that as it may, at least the result was not the disaster that usually happens to a film that suffers from too much interference from someone OTHER than the director. It's hard to imagine this film being any better. Still, it would be interesting to see the director's cut of the film (the deleted scenes aren't much help in guessing what Kaye's original vision was, as they're mostly the sort of throwaway scenes that had a reason for being left on the cutting room floor).
While I respect Kaye's decision for wanting his name removed, having been left with his name on the film is not exactly a bad thing. In fact, his work is amazing. The scenes from Derek's past are shown in black and white (no hint of film noir-style from the oldie films), and the scenes from the present are shown in color. Kaye acted as his own cinematographer, and his skill in both positions is evident.
Insightful, provocative, and undeniably powerful, "American History X" is a brilliant film, and one that needs to be seen.