Since I posted (via social media)
 |
| André Benjamin as Jimi Hendrix in John Ridley's film |
that "Jimi: All is by My Side" is an interesting film, I've been meaning to follow up with a post about a serious issue with the movie. (spoiler alert, …) The movie is far from great, and has various flaws, but there's only one topic I wish to address. I think it's a fascinating movie, partly because of its flaws – well made and intriguing and far more engaging than most biopics. But it's highly problematic at the very least in the way it depicts a widely disputed act of violence, perpetrated by Jimi (as portrayed by André Benjamin) against Kathy Etchingham (Hayley Atwell). When I watch a docudrama of any sort, I assume it's fiction. Still, a film "based on a true story" and presented as a biopic and which generally does a fair (fair meaning passable, not fair meaning evenhanded or unbiased) job providing an overview of the year it covers is bound to be taken as the "true story" by a large percentage of the audience. In this context, depictions of such violence if unfounded are downright defamatory. Within the film's own reality, divorced from any claims of veracity, the pay-phone scene and its aftermath are positioned to call into question the opinion of the lead character which the audience had formed for the bulk of the movie. It's debatable whether the way it's handled is believable or fruitfully provocative even without concern for the real people the film represents. With concern for the film's "true story" claim, it's highly suspect; Ms Etchingham and others deny this event took place, and deny that Hendrix abused women. It is defensible only if the filmmaker truly believes the event to fairly (as in accurately) represent the subject. Otherwise, it's cynically manipulative at best.
The lack of Hendrix songs is irrelevant to the film's quality; if it does impact the value of the film, I'd say it works in the film's favor. The performances, editing, sound design, and overall look of the movie are all stellar and achieved with a rather low budget. John Ridley's film has other weaknesses, but the issue surrounding its depiction of Hendrix's purported violence is by far the most troubling. Whether based on fact or not, the violence in the film is depicted in chilling fashion and doesn't seem to be included for cheap entertainment. I do believe though it is used for political / ideological purposes. The scene serves to designate a certain composite character, and by proxy the racial politics of one her associates, as dishonest and harmful. Convoluted as this may sound, within the film's narrative the violence Jimi commits against his white lover - as goaded on by fictionalized conniving groupie Ida who earlier had brought Jimi to a meeting in which "revolutionary" Michael X tries to sway Jimi towards racially exclusive radical activism and away from Hendrix's broader, "cosmic" view of all people - functions to discredit the Black Power movement, or at least position the version as heralded by Michael X (whom the film depicts as a provocateur and hustler and who in real life was later executed for murder) as offering Hendrix nothing but a horrible, destructive influence. This also opens up other areas for investigation - the racial makeup of the Experience, and reactions to that (not depicted in this film), etc- while it contrasts with the film's depiction of the positive influence on Hendrix of his white girlfriends Etchingham and particularly Linda Keith (Imogen Poots) who is shown as essential in the formation of Hendrix's stylistic development. Melanin pun aside, X and Ida represent the dark side trying to draw in the protagonist. Ida earlier tries convincing Kathy that women mean nothing to rock stars, including Hendrix; she scoffs when Kathy identifies as Jimi's girlfriend and not as a groupie, all the while trying to position herself as Jimi's main gal. After her first meeting with Jimi, Ida gives the audience (and Kathy) a hint of what Hendrix might look like when years later he eventually ODs. She foments Jimi's possessiveness toward Kathy where there had been none, and she feigns concern for and allegiance with Kathy in the wake of the violent outburst for which she planted the seed. Michael X tries to convince Jimi he needs to come over to his harsh way of thinking, and Jimi rejects him. Hendrix likes the weed X is dealing but he ain't buying anything else Michael's selling. I am not getting off topic here. I am noting what I see as the filmmaker's critical stance on X (and Ida) because I view the act of Jimi beating his girlfriend, within the structure of this film, as far less revealing of any rage within the main character and far more as the consequence of Hendrix allowing himself to unknowingly be swayed by Ida, and by extension by Michael X, away from his free spirit and his human-racial inclusiveness towards both a macho possessiveness and racial animosity to the point of race (and gender) based violence. But to stretch the narrative this way by depicting Hendrix lashing out, not metaphorically but literally, physically, and disgustingly violently, against his lover obscures the point apparently beyond recognition (I've seen no review note this) and grossly impugns the character of the real life Hendrix.
If it's true that Hendrix was violent then that's an important, terrible part of his biography. If it's false, as so many who knew or have researched Hendrix insist, than its inclusion in a film presented as factual is despicable and inexcusable, whatever narrative, artistic or ideological purposes it serves.
A feature for Newcity Stage:
