Movie Review: “Straight Outta Compton”

I rarely feel floored anymore by a given movie, but in all honesty, “Straight Outta Compton” is the best non-Pixar film I’ve seen this year. It’s unlikely to appeal to all audiences (and indeed, will potentially be off-putting to many viewers); regardless, “Compton” is a well-made, challenging drama that tells a story many WASP Americans (including me) have never heard.

“Straight Outta Compton” is the true story of controversial rap group N.W.A., featuring hip-hop legends Eazy-E, Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, DJ Yella, and MC Ren (though the latter two don’t have much to do here). During its heyday in the early 1990s, N.W.A. was known for its aggressive lyrics, vivid verbal depictions of urban violence, and unprecedented mainstream success. (Entering the cinema, I had to show my ID to three different theater employees at various points, ostensibly stationed outside the auditorium to “prevent kids from sneaking in.” Some controversies, at least, aren’t likely to die anytime soon.).

F. Gary Gray’s direction is surehanded and engaging: “Compton” clocks in at two and a half hours, the length of a typical overstuffed summer blockbuster, but feels far shorter. Not once does the pacing sag or momentum falter; as someone unfamiliar with the tale of N.W.A.’s rise, I found their story extraordinarily involving. Where skeptical yet intrigued viewers are concerned, “Straight Outta Compton” is unlikely to produce a taste for rap music, but it undeniably produces an appreciation of the genre. Central to this is Andre (“Dr. Dre”) Young, the creative force behind N.W.A.’s success and an exceptionally successful independent producer since the group’s breakup. Whether or not one personally enjoys his work, it’s impossible to deny Dre’s seismic impact upon not only the hip-hop world, but upon countless other genres (pop, country, R&B) that have since adopted similar musical stylings. “Straight Outta Compton” highlights his artistic genius and gave me new appreciation for his contributions.

This is not only a good movie, it is an important one: a portrait of a world far removed from yuppiedom, where real art flourishes despite persistent discrimination and violence. Gratifyingly, Gray’s film displays a readiness to engage with the serious, thought-provoking thematic questions underlying the N.W.A. narrative.

How does one respond to ostensibly legitimate authority figures behaving in an utterly illegitimate manner? The unjustified police harassment faced by N.W.A.’s members – even in utterly banal contexts, such as a visit to their manager’s office – is wrenchingly depicted onscreen. Accordingly, the music produced by the early hip-hop titans – suffused as it was with anger, profanity, and violence – emerged out of real events and real frustrations. The group’s controversial songs constituted a depiction, not a glorification, of a particular community’s experience (whether the same could be said for the work of contemporary rap artists is, naturally, an open question).

To what extent should self-expression be voluntarily tempered by a sense of social responsibility? In an early scene, N.W.A. performs its notorious song “F*** Tha Police” in an exhilaratingly defiant stand against censorious authorities. This riotous glee is later contraposed against grisly images from the Rodney King riots, in which the antiestablishment lyrics of N.W.A. were frequently co-opted by protesters. How should one’s “artistic expression” be balanced against the possible blowback?

“Straight Outta Compton” is something of a niche movie, and many will likely believe it to be an uncritical celebration of “rap culture” (as one might expect given the subject matter here, the use of strong profanity literally never stops throughout – a TV-edit version would essentially be a silent film). For those willing to look past this, however, “Compton” is a fascinating exploration of the history and sophistication of an art form with which many white Americans are likely unfamiliar. Further, it raises questions of authority, power, and artistic responsibility that are as salient today as they were a quarter-century ago, but resists the urge to give pat answers.

In short, I found myself both intellectually and artistically edified by this film. And that is the highest praise I know how to bestow.

VERDICT: 9.5/10
A well-produced, incredibly compelling docudrama that artfully juggles character development, thematic depth, and cultural relevance. Highly recommended.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 14, 2015 in Contemporary


Literature Commentary: Ideal

It’s been a fascinating year for late-flowering publications, with both Harper Lee’s “Go Set a Watchman” and Ayn Rand’s hitherto-unpublished novel “Ideal” hitting bookstore shelves. As a longtime appreciator of “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged,” “Ideal” unquestionably belonged on my summer reading list.

“Ideal” is an uncharacteristically dreamy novel for Rand, taking place over the span of a single night. Actress Kay Gonda (who may or may not have committed a murder) drifts from house to house of those who have written her fan letters. These fans include a family man in a middle-management role, a manic priest watching his congregation implode, a lecherous aristocrat, and a young burnout, among others. Each of these individuals responds to her presence differently: at bottom, she exposes the inadequacies of their lives and their respective failures to pursue higher things. Whether or not Gonda is actually a human being – or rather merely symbolic of her admirers’ craving for sublimity – is a question that lingers after the final page is turned.

In “Ideal,” as in “Anthem,” one truth remains persistently clear: this is a parable, not a serious attempt to depict true-to-life circumstances. Indeed, the narrative structure and motifs evoke biblical imagery – the angels’ visit to Sodom, the spies in Rahab’s house at Jericho, and the parable of the ten virgins, among others. None of Rand’s books are meant to be read as realistic fiction, and “Ideal” is no exception”; that’s not to say, though, that it isn’t oddly compelling in its own way. The surrealism of “Ideal” is a radical shift away from the plot-heavy structure of Rand’s later work, but here it works as an asset: Rand’s much-derided didactic cudgel isn’t on display here (at least relative to subsequent books). “Ideal” systematically changes up its mise en scène, displaying hints of the stage play it would later become, but remains engaging throughout its short length.

It’s been several years since I sat down with a Rand novel, and in that time I’ve read a great deal of criticism of her work (much of it coming from thinkers I respect). I submit, however, that many of these rebuttals are but surface-level criticisms of her novels’ more cringeworthy moments (and there are plenty). Not many engage with the very real reason her novels have remained popular for so long – their vigorous affirmation of a life not only suffused with meaning, but also with purpose. Chiefly, Rand advances a vision of the human person that transcends materialistic nihilism. You were meant for more, her novels tell the reader. Create. Experiment. Risk. This fiercely burning moral directive is compelling on a deep psychosocial level – much more so when juxtaposed against the postmodern ennui of other writers. (As a side note, the persistent affirmation of this transcultural, transpersonal imperative is staggeringly inconsistent with Rand’s claim that man is both the source and end of value. Why can a man not electively assert his autonomy to embrace an apathetic/misanthropic lifestyle? Rand never says.). “Greed is good” is far too simplistic an assessment of the ethical philosophy at play here (and indeed, the profit motive is almost wholly absent from “Ideal”); to its credit, “Ideal” doesn’t attempt to make a case for Objectivist ethics. Instead, this short novel simply hints and suggests, operating more from inference than from pitiless ideology.

Rand’s attacks on the trappings of religion, as in “Atlas Shrugged,” remain on full display here. Her view is an unfortunately myopic one: Rand’s understanding of religion exclusively stresses the debasing of the human person, but ignores any doctrines regarding the glory of the imago Dei (as reflected in the human capacity for creativity). Accordingly, her depictions of religiosity evidence a deeply Gnostic caricaturization: here, there is a slavish and penitential degradation, but no accompanying sanctification or glorification.

So is “Ideal” worth reading? For starters, Rand aficionados owe it to themselves to pick up a copy. Where more general audiences are concerned, this recommendation still holds: like “We the Living,” “Ideal” might actually prove a pleasant surprise for those whose only encounters with Rand’s work have come through dust-ups with insufferable “Atlas Shrugged” acolytes. The seeds of Rand’s controversial philosophy are certainly present, but here they don’t flower into anything overtly questionable. “Ideal” raises more teleological questions than it answers – and its reticence to pontificate is, in fact, its greatest asset.

VERDICT: 7.5/10
“Ideal” won’t convert Rand’s critics, but in the tradition of “Anthem,” it’s a surprisingly accessible parable.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 7, 2015 in Uncategorized


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 236 other followers

%d bloggers like this: