Raízes

The Roots reboot (it's not a remake) was such an amazing piece of television that, despite several users' reviews, was (sadly) historically accurate. Decades of additional research has gone into slavery since the original Roots which allows for a more historically accurate depiction of slavery, although that means it's not necessarily as true to Alex Haley's book (a fair trade-off, if you ask me). Regardless, it is a compelling piece of storytelling based on the facts of the US's shameful past.

That said, some of the negative reviews on here are stunning in their idiocy. My two favorite being the one who asks why there's no depiction of the "good Christian slave owner" and the one who claims there are historical inaccuracies and claims the fact that he "lives with a black woman" as proof that he is an expert on the subject. Basically, what I'm saying is that you should take that 7.whatever overall rating with a grain of salt. Pretty sure the rating for this miniseries should be nearer a 9 overall.

I absolutely love this version of Roots. Its unfortunate that some reviewers of this program refuse to understand the basic fact that there are no good or bad kidnappers - only bad. The act of kidnapping does not allow for some to claim a moral high ground because you provide "small kindnesses." This version of ROOTS is similar to the stories my grandparents told me. Africans were not grateful for small favors - they wanted their freedom. What is undeniable is that all white people profited from this filthy trade in human beings - even the abolitionist. Some abolitionist were honest enough to admit this simple truth.

I wish this version of ROOTS appeared on basic channels so that more people, particularly non- cable watchers could have learned about the resistance of Africans to kidnapping and oppression. Bravo to the producers of this version of Roots!

First, I admit I don't remember seeing the first Roots. I may have when I was young but I don't remember it and I've never read the book so I came into the story with no presuppositions. Even though this is a work of fiction (that Mr Haley apparently plagiarized) it is a work of fiction based in historical fact. Like many incredible works of literature or film the thread of the story may be fiction but it's set in a very real period in history.

All that to say, I'm astonished by some of the reviews on this board. It seems some want a polished up version of history, a Gone With the Wind version that is still ugly if you look close enough at the nuances of the story. The truth is, humans were stolen from their homes and the only world they had ever known or seen and then their traffickers sold them like they were livestock or furniture or maybe even less. They had no rights and every single thing - especially their dignity - was stripped from them. They were dropped into a world they didn't understand or recognize, without even the fortune of common language. This isn't some made up perspective to suit the politics of Black Lives Matter or anything else, it is fact.

If a movie were set in the early 1940's in Germany and the story was about a Jewish family who were actually treated decently by their "Christian" jailers while they were living in a concentration camp, that showed some good sides to the camp as well, everyone would RIGHTFULLY be appalled. But here? No, it seems some want to polish up this ugly stain of American history and call it decoration rather than what it was - horrific.

Okay, so now that I got that off my chest... I found myself crying through many parts of this miniseries and gripped by the injustices at every step. I wanted some happy endings too but only because I was drawn in and rooting for the main characters, but I also realize that happy endings rarely happened during this era for Africans and African Americans and as they rarely had control over their own lives they must have had to deal with the emptiness of unfinished stories, unanswered questions, the sickness of not knowing what happened to their loved ones when they were stolen or violated or sold off. As the viewer I felt that pain and I empathized with the main characters. The apathy and sometimes hatred coming from the slave owners and traders and the way one sin would lead to another and to another so even those with some sense of decency were quick to treat black people as less than and not equal to as soon as they felt threatened or to feel better about their standing in society. This Roots was more The Kitchen House than Gone with the Wind, as viewers we benefit from that fact.

The production and settings were gorgeous and the actors were as well. I thought this was a beautiful telling of a most terrible time.

What to make of this much-heralded remake of the Alex Haley classic? It has a lot going for it - a starry cast led by Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Malachi Kirby, Forrest Whittaker and Lawrence Fishburne; atmospheric photography Peter Menzies jr. and Sharone Meir; and an authentic production design by Ida Random, David Barkham and Jonathan Hely-Hutchinson.

Yet the overall impression of this four-parter is one of blandness; a sense that the directors Bruce Beresford, Phillip Noyce, Mario van Peebles and Thomas Carter are simply retelling the story without any feeling for its historical significance. There are too many dramatic set-pieces strongly reminiscent of TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE, especially when the African American characters are assaulted by their white masters, while the settings (a plantation; the white slave-owner's house; the cattle-market) are shot in such a way - using bright light accompanied by atmospheric music - as to encourage the belief that we are watching a pared-down version of the Steve McQueen film.

The narrative lumbers on throughout each episode, with a pronounced lack of dramatic incident. The directors seem to have been so concerned with atmosphere (or lack thereof), that they have not really encouraged the actors to flesh out their roles. Too often we see performers simply going through the motions of performing with little concern for historical verisimilitude.

This is a real shame, because the idea to remake ROOTS seemed in principle to be such a good one, as a way of reminding viewers that the racial conflicts taking place in the antebellum United States have still not been resolved today. What a shame, therefore, that the creative personnel involved in this miniseries failed to take advantage of the opportunities presented to them.

Based on Alex Haley's 'Roots', this chronicles Alex's heritage from the Mandinka warrior Kunta Kinte who was born in 1750 Juffure, west Africa. The Mandinka kept slaves but the English brought gold and guns. Greed and revenge sends Kunta on a slave ship to America. Despite a slave revolt on the ship, he is sold in 1767 Annapolis. He and his descendants struggle under slavery all the way to Chicken George. George is the son of Tom Lea who raped his mother. He trained chicken to fight for his gambling master Tom. The mini-series ends with George who fights in the Civil War and his family being freed after the war.

The acting is tremendous. The production is terrific considering it's a TV show. There are plenty of big names and familiar faces. The new faces don't seem out of place. Malachi Kirby and Regé-Jean Page play the young leads in their respective time periods. They really shine. There is no weak acting from the main actors. The story does feel compressed from time to time as it skips through various time periods. It's an ambitious undertaking and it mostly pulls it off.