Redemption

The Beginning In the spring of 1971, when Tookie was 17, he was in a very different situation. He was a high school student from South Central Los Angeles. He had a fearsome reputation as a fighter and as a "general" of South Central's west side. And, around that time, Tookie, along with Raymond Lee Washington, created what would one day be a super-gang, the Crips. Back in the day when Tookie and Raymond founded the Crips, many of the young people of South Central Los Angeles were involved with small gangs. Those gang members roamed South Central taking property from anyone who feared them, including women and children. To protect the community, Tookie and Raymond organized the Crips.

Growth By 1979, the Crips had grown from a small Los Angeles gang to an organization with membership spread across the State of California. By this time, Crips had also become just like the gang members they had once sought to protect themselves from -- Crips had become gangbangers who terrorized their own neighborhoods.

Soon the Crips lost both their leaders: in 1979, Raymond was murdered by a rival gang member, and, that same year, Tookie was arrested. He was charged with murdering four people. In 1981, Tookie was convicted of those crimes and placed on death row.

Life in Prison In 1987, Tookie began what became a 6 1/2-year stay in solitary confinement. After two years there, Tookie began to look at himself. He focused on the choices he had made in his life and then committed himself to make a drastic change. The long, difficult process he undertook to rebuild his character put him in touch with his true spirit, his own humanity. Only then could Tookie finally begin to care about the many children, mothers, fathers and other family members of this country hurt by the Crips legacy and by its explosive growth. The gang is now in 42 states and on at least one other continent: South Africa. Youngsters in Soweto and other South African cities have formed the Crips copycat gangs

Tookie Today Tookie greatly regrets the violent history of the Crips -- particularly how so many young black men have hurt each other -- and he wants to do what he can to stop it. The Tookie Speaks Out Against Gang Violence book series for elementary-school-age children is the first fruit of his longing to prevent young people of every color from becoming gangbangers, from ending up in prison, crippled by bullets, or killed.

Tookie is determined to make amends for having been a co-founder of the Crips. He intends to try in every way he can to guide those youngsters who have imitated him away from the road that led him to death row where he faces State execution. "Don't join a gang," he tells children in his books, writing from his San Quentin cell. "You won't find what you're looking for. All you will find is trouble, pain and sadness. I know. I did."

On December 13th, 2005, I read on the Brazilian newspapers that Stanley Tookie Williams III was executed by lethal injection after the denial of clemency from the Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger. Tookie was the founder of a Los Angeles gang called Crips, and condemned for the murder of four persons. After almost seven years in the death row at San Quentin, he decided, with the support of a journalist, to write instructive books for children, being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and to the Nobel Prize for Literature on the next year.

This touching story is very well directed and has another awesome performance of Jammie Fox, probably one of the best American actors in this moment. However, it is very difficult to give an opinion about the polemic and controversial situation of Stanley Williams only based on this movie and a few recent readings. First, I do not know how manipulative this film might be, since it shows only a regenerated and regretted man trying to help children to not follow his path, but never his crimes or how cruel he was while living outside jail. But anyway it is an excellent movie to make the viewer think about some issues. Lets admit that Stan Williams had really regenerated, therefore, accomplishing with the major objective of the penal system. In this situation, his death proves the complete failure of this system, destroying a well-succeeded case of human recovery of a criminal and giving the worst example to the other prisoners. In the other side, there are the relatives and friends of his victims: all of this situation, giving the chance of a murderer writing books for children, would be very offensive for them. I really liked this very awarded and nominated movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Redenção" ("Redemption")

The topic of Stan Williams often incites heated and emotional debate. A movie about his life was therefore a perfect opportunity to inform both sides of the armchair debaters, showing why Tookie was put in prison and sketching the events leading to his self-claimed redemption. Tookie was a wretched man - he said so himself. The movie should have shown how wretched he was. It should have shown the violence he was exposed to when he was young, the murders he was convicted for, his violent behaviour in prison for many years before he had a change of heart. He also always claimed he was innocent of the crimes he was sentenced for, so there was an opportunity to film the murders with some doubt as to the perpetrator. It could really have built around the doubt, and played on the emotional conflict of carrying out the sentence or having mercy on a changed man. But the movie doesn't focus on the character change of Tookie. It never focuses on his violent nature, and the viewer is not taken on the journey of the evolving character. Instead, the film starts off with the nice Tookie Williams who has kind eyes and a nature that evokes sympathy. His former crimes are only eluded to, and he is depicted as an honest man seeking release from prison as a place he can't get used to and just doesn't belong. Jamie Foxx is a brilliant actor, but unfortunately does not portray the latent demon that was Tookie. Jamie is too nice-looking, and not nearly huge enough. If you are not familiar with the Tookie Williams story, this movie will seem to jump around a lot and will not make as much sense as it is supposed to. Those unfamiliar with the story will side immediately with Tookie and want him to be released from prison. As such, it is not an accurate portrayal, and it is not clear what the film was trying to create. The movie never really finds its rhythm and it is an unfortunate lost opportunity. The viewer should have a good idea of how bad Tookie was, and then be able to judge for himself the genuineness of the change, and only then start to question what Tookie's fate should have been. These questions did not need to be answered in the movie, but they should at least have been posed. Instead, the end result is a random and inelegant sympathetic sketch of Tookie's last days that ends on an imperfect cadence.

While packing up my apartment to move, Redemption just happened to come on the TV. I had heard about the controversy surrounding the movie, how it was supposed to "glamorize" gang behavior and justify it. Needless to say (or else I wouldn't be writing this), I got hooked on the film, and didn't get much packing done.

Tookie Williams co-founded the Crips in LA, but after his arrest and death sentence for the murders of several people, Williams embarked on a different path. While on death row, he has written a children's series of books aimed at preventing gang violence. For his efforts, he has been nominated multiple times for the Nobel Peace Prize, and is credited with a truce between the Crips and the Bloods in Newark, NJ.

The film, which chronicles Williams' life, shows how he grew up and got involved with gangs. However, the main thrust of the film is clearly that violence is not right, and that Williams, knowing what he knows now, is seeking to undo as much of his own actions as he can.

Williams does not discount the glamorous lifestyle that gangs allowed him, but recognizes now the pain and destruction that they cause. Williams himself understands the seductive nature of the gang, and is striving to help young people understand the consequences of their actions, before they do them.

Jamie Foxx, up to this point an underrated actor, displays amazing range in his portrayal of Williams. We are meant to see Williams, not as a great man, but rather as a flawed human being, one who has made mistakes and now is fighting to atone for them. If we cannot learn from our mistakes, we are no better than those we criticize. Foxx's performance, for which he has received many accolades, is incredible to watch.

If you are still reading this, you have enough of an open mind to appreciate this film. Please don't let the negative criticism dissuade you from watching this film. The film does not shirk from attempting to show the seductive side of gangs, but it also leaves no question about which side Williams is on. Williams' cause to eliminate gang warfare is a righteous one, and if he succeeds, we all win.

This is not the movie I thought I'd see tonight, but…Even when I didn't want to, for the first time in a while, I doubted the intentions of a film. Doubting is not a negative thing, though, but it is in a lot of ways related to disappointment. "Redemption" is a well made TV film, and it has lots of elements that don't make it disappointing I will talk about, but again; the intentions. To explain the intentions I have to take myself back to the film itself, but I won't do that. When I refer to intentions I mean what the piece tries to generate on the viewer. This is stronger when the film is based in biographical or true events, as this feature. I don't know how much of exactitude this has with Stan Williams' life, but if you are trying to reach someone with something that actually happened, you have to keep it real.

Many parts in "Redemption" were unconvincing to me. I would like to research about "Tookie" Williams, the Crips, the Nobel Prize nominations…I would like to read biographies, the books he wrote…I would like to find out about who he was, what he did, how he did it; knowing that this is likely impossible, and having just seen a movie that should have explained it all. I wonder if it is possible for a man with no culture or education, having been a gangster half of his life, to learn the most difficult words, write with a capacity enough to be awarded, think philosophically and profoundly, and literally become a wise-ass just because of being locked up and having none other thing to do.

The story, despite having occurred in real life, follows common plot lines used in most of movies of the type today. The journalist who wants to write about a prisoner, and first thinks of it just like a job and as a chance of expressing herself, but eventually after getting to know the man behind bars, gets to involved with him and his thoughts, which might be dangerous for her life, etcetera. This is just the general overview, because the film covers different aspects, with flashbacks of Williams' (Jamie Foxx) past, situations in the journalist Barbara Becnel's (Lynn Whitfield) personal life, a glance at the society.

With all this the movie still seems unfinished. First, the movie introduces Williams as a leader and violent individual destined for prison. Then, when he ends up in prison, eventually isolates from the world, reads the definition of the word "redemption" out loud and meets Barbara Becnel, J.T Allen's screenplay presents him as something similar to a Buddha; with glasses, a long haircut that inspires peace and expressions that in occasions out limit the journalist's knowledge. The screenplay also contains phrases that don't seem honest, but convenient and intends that we think, for example, that Williams has one powerful talk with his mom almost at the end of the film, when supposedly she has been visiting the man for years. This does not mean the scrip is flawed but that of course, it is manipulative and not many will buy that.

Vondie Curtis-Hall's direction is way too noticeable for a TV feature. He is not fond of the still shots I witnessed constantly during "Everyday People". He prefers the constant movement, and expresses this during the whole movie, where a shot doesn't stay still during more than ten seconds. He puts the audience to think too, in a lot of instances. Consider the movie's most interesting scene, when Stan is working out and suddenly has a dream…I don't know if Williams ever dreamed that or something similar, but Curtis-Hall made me meditate about it. The director's work isn't disappointing and neither is the main actors'. Lynn Whitfield left me speechless. Besides her eyes being full of expression, almost about to cry and her power in the most stirring scenes, she reminded me of a live person I know. Her face, her ways, made me think of this person in the future.

Blame me, but this is just the fourth time I've regarded Foxx's work. I first saw him in the underestimated "Shade" and thought he overacted; then I watched "Collateral" and I was truly amazed by his gifts; and before this film, I was taken to the past, where in Ice Cube's "The Players Club" he seemed like a relaxed and natural actor. However it was last year when he became word everywhere. "Ray" is a movie I must see, but then here he looked a lot different than in "Collateral", and he achieved a different performance.

Here, the softness in his voice remained, but it was the manners of this more certain and confident man and the strength of this fighter that marked this portrayal. I think the industry may have rushed with him, and that we need to see what he does next. I hope he isn't just an actor who chose some right roles but then looked the other way. He recently starred in a science fiction film alongside Jessica Biel. He'll have to prove the talent to me in a movie like that, I mean; Halle Berry got it for "Monster's Ball", but look where she stands now.