Tension versus Schmaltz - what would you choose?

Rating: 10/10 (17 December 2010)

Mississipi Burning will always be remembered for one of the greatest injustices delivered in modern history.
Whilst no one can deny that Rainman and the performances, especially from Dustin Hoffman are top draw,it is not a patch on Mississippi Burning and yet Rainman cleaned up at the Oscars against this magnificent movie's expense. A travesty of justice but not a surprise.
Once again (as with Forrest Gump), schmaltz wins the day. And yet as a piece of movie making, Mississippi Burning is one of the best I've seen for many years.
The shocking and brutal way the movie unravels the story of racist bigotry in the Deep South during the Sixties is at times incredibly difficult to watch. Yet watch you will, due in part to a magnificent acting performance from Gene Hackman, backed up by a career best performance from Wilem DeFoe.
Hackman & Defoe basically want the same thing - justice for some activists who have gone missing and who they suspect have been murdered. The only problem being that their methods are poles apart - Defoe does everything by the book whilst Hackman does the opposite using intimidation to divide the tight lipped community.
The film is both moving and educational (and brave!) It is based on a true story and I don't really care how true the film is to this story or indeed how there may be certain historical inaccuracies or flaws. As a single coherent piece of cinema the film delivers in abundance. Even the ending whilst positive, is not euphoric and again highlights the bigotry and corruption around at the time. Many of these protagonists are spared jail but you at least get the feeling that it's 'a start'.
This is not a 'feel good' film and was never meant to be. But the acting and imagery of this piece lasted longer in my memory than Rainman which whilst good, is too sentimental and gushing at times.
Conclusion?
Gritty, tension laden films win over schmaltz every single time.