Stockton 1 Ashley Stockton Mr. Reck AP Literature 22/5/2008 11.

8 Great Debaters Denzel Washington, who directed and starred in the film the Great Debaters plays the controversial English professor and alleged communist Melvin Tolson. The Great Debaters loosely based on a true story, tells the story of Tolson and his debate team which defeated a white college for the first time in history. Tolson, a stern man, chooses his team carefully by holding auditions in which he drills the students brave enough to try out. In the end, he only chooses four: two main debaters and two alternates. Tolson (Denzel Washington) ends up with a very balanced team made up of many different personalities. For the two main debaters, Tolson selects Henry Lowe and Hamilton Burgess. Hamilton Burgess (Jermaine Williams), a former debater for Tolson in the previous school year, is an experienced debater and puts those skills developed to good use only to be coerced into quitting by his family when Tolsons questionable activities rise to the surface. Henry Lowe (Nate Parker) is an extremely smart but rebellious young man who is an exemplanary debater but after a failed romance with Samantha Lowe and bearing witness to all the racism, decides to step down and leave it to Samantha to debate against Harvard. The alternates selected by Tolson are Samantha Brooke and James Farmer Jr. Samantha Brooke (Jurnee Smollett) an intellectual young woman with aspirations of a career in law, makes history as the first woman selected to participate on the debate team. James Farmer Jr. (Denzel Whitaker) is an extremely intelligent 14 year old in college. However, despite his intelligence, he

Stockton 2 is still very immature and fantasizes about Samantha only to get his heart broken. In the end, however, it is Samantha and James who bring home the victory against Harvard in the film. The film is very loosely based on the actual history, an issue which the viewers may find to be annoying, especially if they are aware of what actually occurred. A more critical critique of the film from the New York Times chastises the changes in the actuality of the events which occurred. The climatic debate did not occur against Harvard but rather at the University of Southern California. The film, in its Hollywood fashion, changed the location to put a more dramatic effect on the event. This change was not necessary but was made in hopes of selling more tickets at the box office due to all the fame Harvard has obtained over the years. While the New York Times protests against this change as the viewers very well should, a review by Roger Ebert justifies this change. In Eberts review he quotes the co-writer of the film, Robert Eisele who states In that era, there was much at stake when a black college debated any white school, particularly one with the stature of Harvard. We used Harvard to demonstrate the heights they achieved (Esiele 1). Many different issues as well as a love triangle distract from the more important issues in the film taking away from the main point of the movie. Connie Ogle a writer for the Miami Herald, points out the fact that all the side plots that detract from the main drama (Ogle 1). This is absolutely true; the writers chose to venture away from the facts once again in order to give it a shot of adrenaline to be sexy to a mass audience (Holden 1), a quote from Stephen Holden, a writer for the New York Times. This is extremely unnecessary and takes away from the potential greatness which could have been achieved by this movie. The true story in itself was very interesting and all the bells and whistles were not necessary. Of course, being a Hollywood movie some sort of romance had to be added to appeal to the audience. So the writers created a

Stockton 3 romance between Samantha Brooke and Henry Lowe, while at the same time addressing Jamess school boy crush on Samantha and his fantasys about the two of them. Stephen Holden of the New York Times states that the film only dwindles on James infatuation with Samantha for as long as necessary while other viewers might feel that far too much time was spent on this what some may call ridiculous embellishment on the facts. The final disagreement among critics and the general audiences comes with the Wiley teams almost fate like luck in receiving the pro side to all of the issues. However, critics such as Roger Ebert condone this embellishment. Since debaters are supposed to defend whatever position they draw, it might have been intriguing to see them defend something they disbelieve, even despise. Still, I suppose I understand why that isn't done here; it would have interrupted the flow. And the flow becomes a mighty flood in a powerful and impassioned story (Ebert 1). Despite some critics approval of this act, viewers might find it to be a tad ridiculous that the writers honestly expect the audience to buy into the idea that they just happened to get the perfect debate issues to discuss and the pro side to all the debates. Although a decent film the Great Debaters had many faults in its execution. Despite the great cast and excellent acting, the film lacked some depth. By focusing far too much on the side plots which added nothing to the overall point of the movie, they served as mere distractions taking away from the quality of the story. The greatest fault on the writers part was venturing off from the facts with useless distractions. Despite all this, the film still was one worth watching.