Licentia Poetica

The title of this post is inspired by the ability of poets to ignore minor requirements of grammar for poetic effect. And while there are subtle differences in meaning; this term has over time been used interchangeably with dramatic license, artistic license and license. In keeping with that trend, and for the purposes of this discourse, poetic, dramatic and artistic license are one and the same. It's equally important to note: license is entirely at the artist's discretion, intended to be tolerated by the viewer and in and of itself...neither good nor bad.

That said, in a review of American Gangster by Geoff Pevere of the Toronto Star...the critic concluded, "American Gangster is an act of criminal negligence." It is this statement which is the perspective from which I'm embarking on my pseudo-rant on missteps in the film.

Last night I went to see Briton Ridley Scott's American Gangster starring Denzel Washington and (begrudgingly) Russell Crowe. The film takes artistic license with the death of Elsworth "Bumpy" Johnson suggesting he dies with Frank Lucas at his side in an electronics discount store giving Frank the last of many lessons which served to hone his business acumen. The truth is; Elsworth "Bumpy" Johnson died in a nightclub, albeit with Frank Lucas at his side. If that's the point of the scene, why is it that later as the federal task force led by Crowe's Richie Roberts pieces together the facts about Frank Lucas...do they have to restate the fact that Frank Lucas was groomed by Bumpy Johnson? From the aforementioned review in the Toronto Star, I'm understanding the criticism that the film repeatedly tries to tell us what it already told us.

Writing of things already told...it is interesting to note that there is some debate about whether or not the screenplay is original or not. The dispute is whether it is based entirely on Mark Jacobson's article "The Return of Superfly" or, as Universal posits; Jacobson's piece was used as research but that the screenplay depicts a more expansive portrait with characters not included in "The Return of Superfly." What I find ironic is that this film like Francis Coppola's The Cotton Club in 1984 and Bill Duke's Hoodlum in 1997 include significant attention to Elsworth "Bump" Johnson with his treatment in Hoodlum being central to the film. The consistency of treatment and the attention to detail through both those films as well as the historical accuracy portrayed in much of American Gangster beg the question of how this cannot be considered a historical trilogy?! American Gangster's heretofore mentioned repetition had me at certain points throughout the film experiencing deja vu with flashbacks to Mario Van Peebles' 1991 film, New Jack City. Snipes' depiction of Nino Brown is eerily remniscent of Washington's Bumpy Johnson. In researching the facts after seeing the film, I discovered that Bumpy Johnson was also portrayed by Moses Gunn in 1971's Shaft and 1972s Shaft's Big Score.

The "Shaft" films as well as the "Superfly" films of the '70s, among others...helped define Hollywood's exploitation of Black America. The success of these films helped create a genre called "Blaxploitation Films". It would seem appropos then that this film suggests a revival of the genre? As noted in Universal's defense of the screenplay for American Gangster...Richie Roberts is not in Jacobson's article on Frank Lucas.
Richie Roberts is a figment of screenwright Steve Zallian's imagination. Do a little research however and it's not hard to see...Richie Robert's is a "Reader's Digest Condensed version" of Sterling Johnson Jr. Consider the parallels: Sterling Johnson was an NYPD officer until 1967...having graduated the year prior from Brooklyn College Law School (probably attending night school). He was Special Narcotics prosecutor for NYC from 1974 - 1991 and participated in the prosecution of the Lucas Organization in 1975. Further, Sterling Johnson Jr., now a senior US District Court judge, is a founding member of NOBLE; the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. The resemblances again are frightening.

I'm not Nostradamus or any other precognitive seer, but it would seem the best explanation for Richie is twofold: put in a significant white role to counter Denzel's presence in the role of a larger than life character to ensure funding/return on investment and to feed into the messaging that serves to vilify Black men in America. It could be argued that a truly accurate reflection of the facts wherein Sterling Johnson Jr was the protagonist to Frank Lucas as antagonist would have been more unsettling...disproving the presumption of guilt afforded all black men in Harlem during this period. While it's incredible that Frank Lucas did what he did, it's equally remarkable that Sterling Johnson, an African American, did what he did during the same period. Historical reference to period pieces like this one are critical and one highlight of the film was it's historical accuracy...save for R'za's Wu-Tang tattoo!!!! What's up with that?!?!?!?! By all accounts Wu-Tang was established in 1992 a year after Frank Lucas was released from prison the second time!!! I think that's a major faux pas!!!!

My final comment on the film is that the decision to not reflect the fact that Frank Lucas' original sentence was ultimately reduced to 5 years and he was released in 1981 was another critical misstep. Unbowed by his imprisonment he was again incarcerated in 1984 serving 7 years and being released in 1991. The film gives the impression Frank Lucas was imprisoned from the mid '70s until 1991.

Ultimately this project serves notice that, contrary to popular [read: mainstream media influenced] opinion...African Americans are complex enough that if you're attempting a project which delves into the mind of a sociopath the likes of a Frank Lucas; you'll need a lot more that a screenplay based upon an article and a director not quite sure how to use artistic license.