Despite having both the best of intentions and ambition, "American History X" is quite a flawed film.

Rating: 6/10 (24 July 2019)

I was in my mid-teenage years when I first watched "American History X", and certainly thought it was quite a striking picture, both in its message and in its depiction of violence.
Over twenty years later, I can definitely say that this film speaks volumes about numerous worrisome truths that are still plaguing American society today. However, I have to say that the delivery method feels quite pompous and seriously lacks subtlety.
We follow the story of a teenager named Daniel Vinyard (played by Edward Furlong), whose older brother, a skinhead named Derek (played by Edward Norton) is being released from prison, after spending over three years behind the bars for brutally murdering two black gang members. Through a narrative structure that includes numerous flashbacks, we get to see what led Derek to become a leader among a white supremacist gang and commit such a hateful crime. We also get to see how easily influenced Daniel is, trying to follow the same path as his older brother. Derek comes back home as a totally changed man, and as an older brother that feels the urgency to prevent his younger sibling from falling into the same spiral of hate and violence that ultimately ruined his life.
It is a well-known story that the director, Tony Kaye, didn't want his name associated to this film even before its release, due to his disapproval of the final cut, which apparently involves a tone that differs significantly from what he initially had in mind. I have no idea what Kaye's cut of this film was like, and perhaps we will never know, but one thing I can say is this: despite a relevant message altogether, I found that both the characters' psychology and the moral issues that it explores are oversimplified and tackled in a frustratingly superficial way. Some of the dialogue is clumsy and sometimes unnecessary. The best example: Derek didn't need to say "What did I do" when holding the bloodied up body of his young brother who just got shot. Also, Derek's transition from being a young man filled with rage and hatred to becoming a completely changed man is quite abrupt and feels very unnatural, and so does Daniel's sudden "change of mind", which occurs within the span of barely a couple of minutes, technically. Right after that conversation, they added a quick shot of both brothers running around the deserted street, poking fun at each other right after, just to show that Daniel's moment of clarity paid off. Oh boy. Tried to keep my palm away from my face, but couldn't.
This makes me wonder how badly the film's flaws are due to poor editing choices, and certain parts being left out of the cut that ended up getting released. We will never know, unfortunately.
At the time, Tony Kaye's background as a director was mostly within the world of advertising, which I thought was apparent in a few scenes. On the other hand, other scenes almost felt like they were from a TV movie, which left an overall impression that the direction was uneven. The use of black and white during flashbacks, albeit arguably clichéd, was an artistic choice that paid off visually, as those scenes do look great. That being said, this highly stylized violence left me with mixed feelings, as it certainly contradicts the film's whole point. On that same note, I don't know if the use of slow motion was a result of New Line and Norton's input that ultimately led to the cut that Kaye disowned, but at times it seriously felt conspicuous.
The film's main appeal lies in Edward Norton's performance, which is intense and excellent. Again, some of the dialogue, in my view, is not on point at all, and contributes to blemish the character, along with the scattered, untidy psychological evolution that he goes through. That being said, every time Norton appears on screen, he does phenomenal work. Other notable performances include those of Edward Furlong, Faizura Balk and Beverly D'Angelo, unfortunately playing characters that lack any trace of a nuance whatsoever.
I know how beloved this film is, and I know that this review will probably be very unpopular. I'm not arguing that "American History X" does not have a strong and important message, or some really touching moments. Not at all. However, such an important subject matter deserved a more in-depth and thorough look at the psychological evolution of the film's two main characters, because polished visuals and a few tear-inducing moments are no substitute for that in a film that tackles issues of this magnitude. I find its IMDb score of 8.5 to be quite puzzling, to be absolutely honest.
A longer portion of the film's runtime is spent on showing physical and psychological violence in an ostentatious manner than on exploring the mechanisms through which hatred and violence is conveyed within a group of individuals - or a family. And that is a problem.
Despite having both the best of intentions and ambition, "American History X" is quite a flawed film that shares traits with most melodramatic TV movies: it takes the easy preachy route and uses psychological shortcuts aplenty rather than thoroughly exploring the social issues that are at its core.