Genre: Drama/True Story
Premise: In 1925 Detroit, a prosperous physician and descendant of slaves makes a stand when he challenges racial segregation by moving with his younger brother, wife, and infant daughter into a white suburb.
About: This script finished with 38 votes on last year’s Hit List, as well as 10 votes on last year’s Black List. It comes from a new team-up. Max Borenstein, who wrote Godzilla and Kong: Skull Island. And Rodney Barnes, who wrote on Everybody Hates Chris and Hulu’s Runaways. He also wrote the upcoming Black Messiah: The Fred Hampton Story. David Oyelowo will star as Ossian Sweet. Jose Padilha (2014’s Robocop) will direct.
Writers: Max Borenstein & Rodney Barnes
Details: 124 pages
Let’s keep it 100 here. This is the definition of Black List catnip. When you combine racial injustice and a true story, you might as well get a reservation slip in the mail since you’re guaranteed to be invited to the Black List party. It’s for this reason that I approached Arc of Justice skeptically. I’m not convinced it earned its spot so much as calculated it. And I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with calculation. If you see an opening, exploit it! It’s hard enough to make it in this business. Why not take advantage of loopholes? It’s just that this one seems particularly crafted to win the hearts of voters as opposed to audiences. I hope I’m wrong.
The year is 1925. 38 year-old Doctor Ossian Sweet, a black man, has become one of the best doctors in the Detroit, Michigan area. Sweet, along with his wife, Gladys, have had enough success that they’re able to move into one of the nicer suburbs in the area. There’s only one problem. The Sweets will be the only black people in that neighborhood.
Ossian’s troubled younger brother, Henry, isn’t sure this is the right move. Ossian has a near cult-like following in the black community. He’s a hero. To throw that away just to live amongst and earn the respect of white folks seems like a mistake. Still, he supports his brother, even helping him move in.
But as they carry furniture into the house, a crowd of white people form outside. At first, they’re curious. But then they become rowdy. Then rocks start flying through the window. Looking down at the mob from the upstairs, it seems to Ossian and Henry like the mob might rush the house. So Henry pulls out a gun. Ossian grabs it and the two scuffle. The next thing we hear are two shots, and two members of the mob fall. One is dead, the other injured. Ossian is arrested for murder.
In comes Walter White, a black journalist who’s constantly mistaken for being white due to his pale skin color. White sees Ossian as a symbol of the black man’s plight. He believes that if he can help Ossian win this case, it will give black men everywhere hope. But to do that, he’s going to need to get him a great lawyer, specifically a white lawyer, something Ossian’s not keen on.
The case will hinge on who, exactly, shot the white men, information not even we’re privy to. Ossian’s lawyer, Darrow, wants him to plead self-defense. It makes sense. People were storming his home. A man has a right to protect himself and his property. But Ossian refuses. He claims he’s innocent. This means they’ll have to bank on an all-white jury coming to the conclusion that Ossian is innocent, a near impossible feat in the year 1925.
I’ll start by saying this: Arc of Justice isn’t what I expected it to be.
I think I was expecting something heavier, slower, and more self-important. One of those, “Look at how serious I am!” Oscar contender types. But the script has a light touch at times. Dare I say even funny. It reads faster than you’d expect. And some of the characters were fun. Walter White, in particular, is a career changing role. In a way, he’s like a superhero – he’s able to slip into suspect places (such as a Ku Klux Klan rally) without anyone knowing he’s black. Giving him unfettered access to the darkest corners of white America.
But there’s something… I don’t know… wonky about the way the story is constructed, specifically how they didn’t show us who killed the man. Now if this choice had made the story better, I’d be all for it. But in almost every way, it makes the story worse. If we see that Henry shoots and kills the man, then we know that an innocent Ossian is putting his life on the line to protect his brother. That’s interesting. Instead, they wanted to play up the mystery of the shooter til the end, which is okay, I guess. But I never considered this an Agatha Christie novel. The hook isn’t “whodunnit?” The hook is will a white jury let a black man go free for the murder of a white man?
The whodunnit miscalculation works its way into every aspect of the story. One of the more compelling aspects of the script is Ossian’s defiant belief that justice will win out. He boneheadedly believes that the jury won’t see color, that they’ll do the right thing. This is his character’s flaw – his inability to accept that the world sees black people and white people as different. But this only works if we know Ossian is innocent. Yet we don’t know he’s innocent since the writers are still playing up the possibility that Ossian might’ve pulled the trigger. You can’t have it both ways!
Structurally, the script shuns the three act structure, opting for chapters instead. (i.e. Chapter 1: The Doctor, Chapter 4: The Great Defender, Chapter 6: The Shooter). There are seven chapters in all. I have no problem with this in theory and actually think it’s clever. A script is a giant chasm of space. It’s a cave that can seem endless at times. Anything you can do to break that up into chunks makes it more manageable.
You remember the kids who were stuck in a cave last month? If you only focused on getting to the kids, it seems daunting. But if you say: First, let’s get to this section, right here. We figure out a safe way to get there, then we’ll worry about getting to the next safe spot. And then so on and so forth. If you do that, getting to the finish line feels manageable. And that’s what you get here with the chapter approach.
The problem with a chapter approach (or something similar) is you’re going away from what’s proven to work – the 3-Act structure. Beginning (setup), Middle (conflict), End (resolution). That’s the most satisfying way to tell a story. So if you go away from what’s tried and true, you’ll be improvising. Which means the journey will be bumpier. And that’s exactly what Arc of Justice was. Bumpy. It’s a sometimes smooth but occasionally clunky story. And when you’re dealing with weighty material like this, audiences are less open to clunk. There’s a baseline level of sophistication required and Arc of Justice felt more like a script that was finding its way as it went along. We’ll see what happens though. If Padilha directs the hell out of the script, who knows?
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: When you’re writing serious subject matter, don’t be afraid to add at least one flashy and/or fun character. A lot of writers erroneously believe that if their “serious” movie is going to be taken “seriously” that every frame needs to be “serious.” No, you need levity. You need the audience to be able to take a breath every once in awhile. Smile. Even laugh. The character of Walter White provided that here. He was fun.
