Roots (2016 History Channel)

[DearEvette]

Ha!  I'll hop right on the shallow bus with you.  There was a point when the actor who plays George smiled right into the camera and I felt like I was looking at the sun.  Boy is cute as hell.  And then the actor who played the free man, what a tall, dark bite of chocolate!

Sorry.  Hopping off the bus now.

I also agree on the acting.  Everyone is doing a great job.  Anika Noni Rose put some bass in her voice for Kizzy.  She had me riveted.  I've always liked her just fine, but for me seeing her in this role is like me with Bey &  Lemonade.  it was a revelation and I gained new respect for her.  I hope this raises her profile a bit. I would love to see her more.

[mightysparrow]

I hope there's room on the shallow bus for me too.  I can't believe how many beautiful men are in the cast.  Marcellus, the free man, was simply breathtaking.  

[Scarlett45]

21 minutes ago, mightysparrow said:

How could George be held in captivity for twenty years if slaves were freed in Great Britain in 1833?  That's why runaway slaves went to Canada; it was part of Great Britain so they were free the moment they crossed the border.  I can't believe the producers didn't bother to check their facts.  

It seems that George is still the no-account man he was before he left.  I'm glad Matilda has her man back but i'm beginning to think that George coming home won't be a good thing for his family.

I think the law allowed a stipulation that if your enslaved state originated where it was allowed AND you were traveling in service with your master your enslaved state followed you into British territory. (But don't quote me on that)

 

Also while George may have technically "free" in the UK, he couldn't come home without papers so....

[TigerLynx]

Add me to the shallow bus to.

I agree all the actors/actresses are doing a great job.

You all were right.  They just had to throw some 21st action/adventure into the story.

[emjohnson03]

What a riveting series! I waited to watch the first 2 parts so I could FF through commercials but watched the others wit it because its just so well done and I have enjoyed watching the journey of these characters.

I really hope these actors all get well noticed after this, especially Malachi Kirby, he was magnificent. I loved the filming and the music. The production was clearly well thought out and made much more of a modern audience. There were times I was squirming and it really shows that they spared no grit and darkness.

I think overall the first 2 parts were amazing.

I hope and suspect this will win many awards and the cast will be well known on the award circuit.

Side note: Never much cared for Jonathan Rhys Meyers but wow! He really made me loathe him.

Cannot say enough on how much I have really been captivated and blown away by all the actors.

Jumping on the shallow bus as well....Regé-Jean Page (Chicken George) beautiful! And of course Malachi Kirby, is gorgeous.

Edited June 3, 2016 by emjohnson03

[Spartan Girl]

So Anna Paquin played an abolitionist Yankee spy, aka the only halfway decent white person on this show (so far). And of corse she winds up lynched.

The acting is superb but the visual effects are just so ghastly.

But yeah the men are so damn beautiful...

Edited June 3, 2016 by Spartan Girl

[mightysparrow]

Fort Pillow...I don't know if I'm going to be able to watch this.

[TigerLynx]

Back in the shallow end of the pool again - Thank you for giving us a final shot of a shirtless Kunta Kinte.

Really great casting and acting (actual acting talent, not just pretty eye candy, although I did enjoy the pretty).

However, no way in hell George and his family would have left that plantation alive after he killed the owner's son, even though that guy totally had it coming.

[Scarlett45]

5 minutes ago, TigerLynx said:

Back in the shallow end of the pool again - Thank you for giving us a final shot of a shirtless Kunta Kinte.

Really great casting and acting (actual acting talent, not just pretty eye candy, although I did enjoy the pretty).

However, no way in hell George and his family would have left that plantation alive after he killed the owner's son, even though that guy totally had it coming.

Yes, that was another "Django Unchained" moment that wasn't necessary. Especially with the man's parents standing right there!

I enjoyed the remake very much. The acting was superb, the script was great (minus the Django Unchained moments), I appreciate that it really focused on the relationships between the characters. I want to see so many of these actors in more roles. 

 

Also, the old age makeup was so good!!!! It reminded me of the old age makeup in I, Claudius, which we know is great because Derek Jacobi now looks exactly as he did with the makeup. 

[voiceover]

I mourn the loss of two of my favorite moments from the original: 

1. An aged Kizzy spits in the cup of an ancient Missy ( who claims not to recall ever knowing her)...I was SO SURE we were being set up for that when Missy grinned at Kizzy's adding the bitter leaf to the snotty girl's lemonade.  

2. Kunta weeping over Fiddler, dead of old age and life, crying, "You free now, Fiddler! How it feel?"  I want to know which was the book version.  And if it was the original, then why didn't they keep it??

Lovely coda.  Pretty much how a writer's imagination takes him.  Glad I watched.

[pele2102]

Quote

However, no way in hell George and his family would have left that plantation alive after he killed the owner's son, even though that guy totally had it coming.

I remember thinking y'all need to get out of there a lot faster. 

[Spartan Girl]

5 hours ago, voiceover said:

I mourn the loss of two of my favorite moments from the original: 

1. An aged Kizzy spits in the cup of an ancient Missy ( who claims not to recall ever knowing her)...I was SO SURE we were being set up for that when Missy grinned at Kizzy's adding the bitter leaf to the snotty girl's lemonade.  

2. Kunta weeping over Fiddler, dead of old age and life, crying, "You free now, Fiddler! How it feel?"  I want to know which was the book version.  And if it was the original, then why didn't they keep it??

Lovely coda.  Pretty much how a writer's imagination takes him.  Glad I watched.

I wish they had those two parts too. And what about the part where Kizzy finds her dad's grave and scratches out "Toby" and writes Kunte Kinte? Or did I miss that part?

[GHScorpiosRule]

6 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I wish they had those two parts too. And what about the part where Kizzy finds her dad's grave and scratches out "Toby" and writes Kunte Kinte? Or did I miss that part?

No @Spartan Girl, you didn't miss that part, because they didn't show it!

I watched to prove to myself I had an open mind-I watched the original as a wee one, and again last year when it reaired on cable, and it was still powerful.  Though this one had some really good performances and a LOT of eye candy (shallow, I know), the original is still the best and more visceral for me.  I'll have more later because I can't access this site at work and I'm typing from my phone, but I will say that though they got great actors, I didn't feel the shock and upset at the actors who played slave owners and overseers, and traders, like I did when I saw my favorite tv dads like Papa Walton, Mike Brady, and the Rifleman(!). Not to mention Ed Asner!

And they didn't have a different actor to play Kunte, as an adult, like they did with Jon Amos playing the older version. But they did have different actresses playing Kizzy.

The actions of the protagonists were just too...modern for me. Though I did tear up at the very end. And now I want to go watch the original.  Because I know there was a LOT missing in this remake. Parts I wanted to see how the remake would handle it.

Edited June 3, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[StaceyNotStacie]

I've never seen the original or read the book. This was well done and well acted. I don't know if it was shown in the original movie, but there were things that were missing that I would have liked to see. I didn't like how they just left Kunta behind after Kizzy was sold. I wanted more to that story or some sort of epilogue as to how his and Belle's story ended. The same thing with Kizzy.  I know they showed her grave, but I would have liked to have seen her reaction to the news that George was sent to England. 

[SimoneS]

Overall, this was a good remake, but I thought the final episode was the weakest. I thought the actor playing George got progressively worse and the actor who played Tom wasn't particularly strong. I didn't like the lack of follow up on the emotional impact of the rape of Tom's wife. I wish that they had focused on one of George's daughters as well. The Anna Paquin/Mekhi Phifer spy story felt tacked on. Surely, there were better less over the top ways of incorporating the Civil War into the story. The killing of Fredrick was unrealistic and unbelievable. I expected a white mob to show up and lynch them all when they were sitting around the fire. 

The series suffered for omitting the scene of Kizzy going to back to the plantation to see her parents, only to discover her father died after her mother had been sold off. Kizzy visiting his grave, scratching out Toby on the marker, and writing Kunta Kinte. It was an important moment of triumph for Kizzy and Kunta Kinte.

I remember Kizzy spitting into Missy Anne's water clear as day. It was one of the most shocking things that I had ever seen on tv and everyone gathered around the tv cheered as Kizzy got that small revenge. It took so much courage for her to do that small thing. In this remake, the spitting is too minor a revenge for the showrunners. They prefer the unrealistic protrayal of the enslaved people killing the slaveowners and other whites.

Edited June 3, 2016 by SimoneS

[nodorothyparker]

The first two episodes were definitely the strongest for me, but by this last one it had become too much of Roots: An Action Adventure Tale, now with a half baked espionage story and the wholly unlikely sequence of George shooting a white man in front of his parents and witnesses and somehow being allowed to just walk away free and they lost me.  In reality, they would have been extremely lucky to get out of there with only George ending up shot or lynched and not at least a few of the sons as well.

I'm not sure if Tom wasn't acted as well or if he was just too undeveloped, but he didn't really register much as a distinct character the way Kunte, Kizzy, and George had.  This entire episode felt very rushed, like they were trying to speed through a lot of plot points to get to their set ending.  I appreciate that they were trying to address the Civil War, and the inclusion of Fort Pillow actually worked for me in a way that a lot of the other stuff didn't because it perfectly illustrated the additional stakes any black man who took up arms for the Union was facing.  Confederate prison camps were pretty awful and had extremely high mortality rates, but white prisoners could and did survive them.  The Confederates didn't take black prisoners though, so they realistically couldn't surrender and they were dead the minute their white officers did.

It's been so long since I've read the book I can't remember now if Fiddler's death and Kunte crying at his grave was a show only thing or not.  The part of his book story that I missed was the reveal that Fiddler had been playing for the white people for 30 years and diligently saving all that time to buy his freedom only to find out that inflation and own reputation as a good fiddler player had increased his value so far beyond the original price he was quoted he had no hope of ever reaching it.

I'll agree with everyone else that the series has been extremely well acted.  The aging makeup has been some of the best I can remember seeing and the men certainly did bring the pretty.

[Neurochick]

I watched the original in 1977, as a teenager.  I watched some of this and I agree, I thought I was watching Django Unchained at some points.  It doesn't bother me that they did that, they knew that no way would they get a younger viewing audience if they did a shot for shot version of the original.  2016 isn't 1977, and some things that could fly then, can't now (which is why I didn't think they should have re-made the series).

What I do like about this version is they are using a lot of lesser known actors.  In 1977, the producers probably thought they needed to have well known actors or else people wouldn't watch. 

To me, the duel was very realistic.  I watch the Starz show "Black Sails" and there is a scene where two men have a duel, pistols then swords.  The reason this one went on for so long, was because neither man wanted to yield.  I got the feeling though that the producers were like, "look what the censors allow us to do, you couldn't do this in 1977!"  I was surprised Tom Lea didn't behead the other man at that point. 

I thought Jonathan Rhys Meyers did a wonderful job.  It was interesting seeing him in that role because IRL he has battled so many demons.  That duel scene, the scene between he and George was chilling.  But one thing bugged me, either Rhys Meyers looked too young, or the actor who played George looked too old to be a teenager, it was a bit jarring because at one point they both looked the same age.

[junemeatcleaver]

Quote

But one thing bugged me, either Rhys Meyers looked too young, or the actor who played George looked too old to be a teenager, it was a bit jarring because at one point they both looked the same age.

I thought he looked too young as well.  At one point he looked a bit younger than Kizzy when, I assume, Tom Lea was supposed to be at least 10 to 15 years older than her.

Buzzfeed has posted an interesting essay/review about Roots, they talk about and criticize the Django effect:  https://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/the-django-problem-and-the-tangled-history-of-roots?utm_term=.eywYkN03o5#.vg5egOj2Ly

[ClareWalks]

It is kind of sad that Roots had to turn to this shock factor (the Django Effect as it's been put) when telling the truth about how little agency Black Americans had back then is way more shocking. Honestly, this remake has kind of played into the attitudes of many racist white Americans with regard to modern-day police violence. "See, they're thugs, it's okay that we do _______ to them." The truth - that slaves were treated like shit and they had NO recourse - takes away their excuses, and makes the whole scenario all the more tragic and inspiring.

[ClareWalks]

Of course, my DVR cut off right after George killed that Frederick dude. Can anyone tell me what happens next? I tried to watch online but it requires a friggin' login.

ETA: Nevermind, found my login. I didn't want to miss the thrilling Shirtless Kunta finale :-P

Edited June 3, 2016 by ClareWalks

[ruby24]

4 hours ago, ClareWalks said:

It is kind of sad that Roots had to turn to this shock factor (the Django Effect as it's been put) when telling the truth about how little agency Black Americans had back then is way more shocking. Honestly, this remake has kind of played into the attitudes of many racist white Americans with regard to modern-day police violence. "See, they're thugs, it's okay that we do _______ to them." The truth - that slaves were treated like shit and they had NO recourse - takes away their excuses, and makes the whole scenario all the more tragic and inspiring.

I think it's more about the fact that the people behind the show think a modern audience couldn't stand to watch a story about slavery without seeing the slaves fight back- but then they didn't recognize the reality that if they did that, they all would have been killed immediately. They wouldn't just get away with it.

All of those moments took me out of the story every time it happened. They just rang false. Every character got their Django moment- Kunta, Kizzy, George. The free man too (I was also distracted by the fact that I really don't think that guy could just wander all over North Carolina as a free man, standing up to white men and no one would do anything to him. The way he faced down Tom Lea in the farm? There's no WAY that would happen like that).

The showrunners don't trust that the audience now could handle seeing this story without the characters all earning their moments of revenge.

[ClareWalks]

It's true, they definitely let their "the audience wants immediate gratification" theory override the storytelling.

[voiceover]

If they wanted to tell *that* story, bring on the Harriet Tubman (I remember thrilling to her story as told on Cronkite's children's show "And you were there!") and Nat Turner pics.

[Ohwell]

I preferred the first two episodes and the story of Kunta Kinte.  I just couldn't get into Chicken George and his story.

[mightysparrow]

I've never seen 'Django Unchained' and don't intend to but I understand what is meant by the 'Django' effect.  The assumption that the viewers are children that won't appreciate a truthful story but prefer to see one where the slaves are action heroes.  The truth is that a Black man or woman risked their life if they raised their voices to a White man/woman, much less raised a hand.  I would have preferred that a story that told a new audience the horror and violence of life as a slave.  There was a lot of rape but very little of how slave women survived repeated rapes.  I would have liked to see a conversation between Tom and his wife after her gang rape.  How does a man deal with the fact that he can't protect his wife, mother, daughter, sisters.  That he might have to help raise the child that is a result of rape.  The Snoop Doggs might not want to see it but I do. Those people are my ancestors and I'm here because they endured and survived the unspeakable.

Even today, there seem to be people are African descent who feel shame because their ancestors were slaves.  That makes me sad.  Descendants of Holocaust survivors don't feel shame.  Why should descendants of the survivors of a 300 year holocaust feel shame?

I think the producers made a mistake in trying to pack too much into the show.  Anna Paquin and Mekhi Phifer were good but their story was borderline absurd.  The brave men and women who risked their lives as Union spies deserved more than that. 

Like so many, I found it impossible to believe that George would get away with killing Fredrick right in front of his parents.  There's no way George and his family would have made it off the property before he and his sons were brutally murdered and all of the women repeatedly raped.  The only way I could justify Fredrick's killing was that his parents knew what an asshole their son was and were glad to be rid of him.

With all it's flaws (and there were a lot of them), I'm glad I watched this version of 'Roots'.  The cast was outstanding with so many amazing performances.  I wept at the end to see Alex Haley greeting his ancestors.  Apparently Haley made up a lot of his story.  Well, that's what happens when you steal a people's history from them.  But Haley gave many of us a history that we could call our own.  He gave us something to hold on to and to give us pride.  I'll always be grateful to him for that.

[TigerLynx]

The filmmakers underestimate their audience.  If it was that easy to throw off oppressors, there wouldn't still be dictatorships all over the world today, and slavery would no longer exist.

George did something more important for his family than kill a despicable slave owner, and it wasn't shown in this version.  George had acquired property for them in Tennessee (they referenced going to Tennessee, but they glossed over the details).  The question, "Now that we're free what do we do?" had a lot of significance.  It wasn't like they could go into town, apply for jobs, and search for an affordable apartment to rent.  Thousands of slaves ended up as sharecroppers, another form of slavery, and were just as bad off as when they had been slaves.

[caprice]

Since he'd never seen the original, I found myself explaining some of why I was excited about the potential with the re-imagining to m. caprice. Of course, I was only ten when it came out, so I was only able to see bits and pieces of it. I didn't understand everything I saw, but some things have very definitely stuck with me and inspired me to do some related reading.

There were aspects of this version that I truly enjoyed: more of Kunta Kinte's life in Juffure and acknowledging their faith among them. I liked seeing his training of Kizzy and learning anything about Belle. It was also great to see unknown (to me) actors in many of the roles.

As with the original, the timeline was frustrating, but recognizing that Haley wrote a fictional account, I guess I'll live with it.

I didn't like what I felt was an assumption that the audience would forget about Kizzy just because George was in England. What she went through in those years stands out in my memory from the original. I also felt cheated by not seeing her return to the Waller farm and her encounter with Missy. We don't all have short attention spans!!

As for the Django Effect, yeah, that was taking me out of the story a lot. Interestingly, the one place they toned it down was at Fort Pillow. The brutality there was much worse than was portrayed last night.

[ClareWalks]

7 minutes ago, TigerLynx said:

The filmmakers underestimate their audience.  If it was that easy to throw off oppressors, there wouldn't still be dictatorships all over the world today, and slavery would no longer exist.

George did something more important for his family than kill a despicable slave owner, and it wasn't shown in this version.  George had acquired property for them in Tennessee (they referenced going to Tennessee, but they glossed over the details).  The question, "Now that we're free what do we do?" had a lot of significance.  It wasn't like they could go into town, apply for jobs, and search for an affordable apartment to rent.  Thousands of slaves ended up as sharecroppers, another form of slavery, and were just as bad off as when they had been slaves.

Truth. It wasn't like "we're free! Huzzah!" and let's run off and live happily ever after. They were dealing with a hostile, still-racist country, widespread illiteracy among former slaves, lack of education/job skills, etc. Not only that, but in the book at least, they had to stay on or near the plantation because otherwise George would have had no clue where they'd gone, when he finally returned.

[TigerLynx]

I forgot to mention the two actresses who played Missy did an excellent job to.  Even when the spoiled little princess was giving Kizzy gifts, and saying they would be friends forever, her weird possessiveness of Kizzy showed if Missy ever turned that devious selfishness on Kizzy, it was going to be bad.

[Tenshinhan]

1 hour ago, mightysparrow said:

I've never seen 'Django Unchained' and don't intend to but I understand what is meant by the 'Django' effect.  The assumption that the viewers are children that won't appreciate a truthful story but prefer to see one where the slaves are action heroes.  The truth is that a Black man or woman risked their life if they raised their voices to a White man/woman, much less raised a hand.  I would have preferred that a story that told a new audience the horror and violence of life as a slave.  There was a lot of rape but very little of how slave women survived repeated rapes.  I would have liked to see a conversation between Tom and his wife after her gang rape.  How does a man deal with the fact that he can't protect his wife, mother, daughter, sisters.  That he might have to help raise the child that is a result of rape.  The Snoop Doggs might not want to see it but I do. Those people are my ancestors and I'm here because they endured and survived the unspeakable.

I think that many people are tired of seeing Black men and women depicted as a subservient and helpless people in contrast with the all-powerful "White Man".  I prefer historical fiction to be truthful and accurate as well, but how many films have come out in recent years or are currently in the works that revolve around slavery? I think that critics are fed up with Hollywood continually hitting up the same well again and again, while the vast number of stories about Black people from before and after slavery remain untold on film.  Those stories would provide a greater opportunity to portray Blacks in a different light.  I too worry how audiences are psychologically affected by the constant flow of slave stories; what patterns are being reinforced?  I agree that there is a whole lot more ground that can be covered within the story of slavery, and I wouldn't mind seeing those stories told properly.  Just not at the expense of all other Black stories.

 

1 hour ago, mightysparrow said:

Why should descendants of the survivors of a 300 year holocaust feel shame?

They shouldn't, but being disconnected from one's own history, as well as living and growing under White supremacy will instill that sense of shame.

 

2 hours ago, mightysparrow said:

The only way I could justify Fredrick's killing was that his parents knew what an asshole their son was and were glad to be rid of him.

That's kinda what I thought they were going for to be honest.  That and maybe the producers were like "at this point, why not? Only five minutes left anyways..."

[ruby24]

1 minute ago, Tenshinhan said:

I think that many people are tired of seeing Black men and women depicted as a subservient and helpless people in contrast with the all-powerful "White Man".  I prefer historical fiction to be truthful and accurate as well, but how many films have come out in recent years or are currently in the works that revolve around slavery? I think that critics are fed up with Hollywood continually hitting up the same well again and again, while the vast number of stories about Black people from before and after slavery remain untold on film.  Those stories would provide a greater opportunity to portray Blacks in a different light.  I too worry how audiences are psychologically affected by the constant flow of slave stories; what patterns are being reinforced?  I agree that there is a whole lot more ground that can be covered within the story of slavery, and I wouldn't mind seeing those stories told properly.  Just not at the expense of all other Black stories.

 

I agree and I think that's why they did this but...it just isn't the truth when it comes to a story that I always thought was mostly meant to reveal the  slave experience over several generations.

I think if you want to show something different, then you should tell a different story, like one of a specific slave revolt or maybe the stories of the Underground Railroad. Or obviously set in another era, like the civil rights era, etc. But to bring those elements into Roots? It makes the story feel more like fantasy instead of history.

[Kira53]

2 hours ago, TigerLynx said:

I forgot to mention the two actresses who played Missy did an excellent job to.  Even when the spoiled little princess was giving Kizzy gifts, and saying they would be friends forever, her weird possessiveness of Kizzy showed if Missy ever turned that devious selfishness on Kizzy, it was going to be bad.

Watching this miniseries I started to perceive  that Missy might have had more than a "girl crush" on Kizzy.  I had not thought that before during my reading of the novel or watching the first miniseries.  It explains another deeper unconscious level for her motivations and behaviors.  It's a small point but I wondered what others might think of the possibility that her feelings might have become sexual over time.  Kizzy helping Noah could have been felt as a double or triple betrayal of their friendship.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Kira53

[TigerLynx]

Missy didn't like Noah being around Kizzy.  The way she was adjusting Kizzy's dress and hair seemed like more than just friendship.  She might have had feelings for Kizzy she didn’t understand, or it might just have been a result of a power imbalance from the beginning, and Missy being allowed to do whatever she wanted when she was at “Uncle Williams.”

There are a lot of other stories that could be told about this time period, and there were other slave revolts besides Nat Turner’s.  There’s also a lot of stories that could be told about former slaves who moved to the north, and still faced prejudice.

Movies could be made about people who went west only to find out the whites were oppressing the Native Americans, Blacks, Asians, women, etc., there to.  When the founding fathers said all men were created equal, what they really meant were all white men with money, with the right pedigree, who didn’t like King George were created equal.  Everyone else, not so much.

These people survived, made lives for themselves, and they didn’t resort to killing everyone they disagreed with.  There are ways to show triumph without someone turning into Rambo.  I thought that was the point they were trying to make when at times both Kunta Kinte and Kizzy wanted to die, but found a reason to live instead.

The 1920s would be another era to explore.  A lot of advances towards equality African Americans and women had made were set back by the Great Depression.

[cakes1975]

8 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I think it's more about the fact that the people behind the show think a modern audience couldn't stand to watch a story about slavery without seeing the slaves fight back- but then they didn't recognize the reality that if they did that, they all would have been killed immediately. They wouldn't just get away with it.

All of those moments took me out of the story every time it happened. They just rang false. Every character got their Django moment- Kunta, Kizzy, George. The free man too (I was also distracted by the fact that I really don't think that guy could just wander all over North Carolina as a free man, standing up to white men and no one would do anything to him. The way he faced down Tom Lea in the farm? There's no WAY that would happen like that).

The showrunners don't trust that the audience now could handle seeing this story without the characters all earning their moments of revenge.

There were actually free Black Men in NC and while Tom Lea may have been pissed that Kizzy was with him, he would have been stupid to kill him. To kill a Freeman would have afforded a poorer slaveholder like Tom a trial, and he definitely would lost all of his land and slaves before the jury had acquitted him. It was mentioned in the later Chicken George story on the plantation with his family that killing a Freeman was not worth the trouble it would cause, and remember even in those days, it was never a secret who was walking around with their papers.

I thought some of the Django-like moments were over the top, but I appreciate that the killings were done in ways that did not track back on the killers. Slaves were money and you kill off a bunch without any real justification, you are taking money out of your pocket, and I appreciate that they kept reminding us that this was always about property and money, old fashioned capitalism.

 My thoughts on George killing the old master's son and just walking away is that the civil war had just been lost and there were no other White People on the land. The old master had to persuade the newly freed slaves to keep working the land as sharecroppers and he would pay them later. Who was going to come after George and his family after he shot the young master? His father and mother were too week to do anything, hell his father could not keep the son from string up his own wife just a few years earlier; and his half dead wife, yeah right, with no other white people around and no way to quickly get to town to form a posse, old master did the right thing, he went back in the house a got the sharecropping folks to help him bury his son with no questions asked.

[DearEvette]

I agree that the first two episodes were the strongest with the better storytelling and more nuanced writing.

And yes, the Django-effect is noticeable (and a little disappointing).  But I do think the killings were strategically done as @cakes1975 mentions in such a way that they weren't able to blow back on Kunte, Kizzy & George.  Or even if they did, they were at a point where they were like 'kill me if you have to.' 

But I also think it was a deliberate choice 1) because it ties back to Kunte's background as a warrior and him passing down that mindset to his kids.  From him to Kizzy from Kizzy to George (even if George did lose his way a bit). So it was a way to winding a thread through them that says their spirit is ubowed and 2) I think it is a bit of a meta clap back against the idea being pushed lately in books and textbooks trying to paint slaves as 'happy servants' (I know people like Snoop Dogg didn't want to watch another slave drama, but if these stories stop being told with at least a modicum of truth then the the 'happy servant' narrative is what will win out in the end) and 3) yeah, they have to appeal to a modern audience, it is still fictional tv.

Overall, even with some of the OTT moments, I thought this was a great remake and it was largely due to the actors themselves and some really smart writing.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

The 1920s would be another era to explore.  A lot of advances towards equality African Americans and women had made were set back by the Great Depression.

Shonda Rhimes is producing a miniseries based on The Warmth of Other Suns, an acclaimed nonfiction book about the Great Migration written by a Black woman. The 1920s are part of that era.The miniseries will air on FX but I've not been able to find a release date.

Nothing against T.I. but his presence took me out the show a bit. His real-life persona overshadowed the role, IMO, plus he's not much of an actor. I wonder if they cast him in an effort to pull in younger viewers? I also thought Anna Paquin was an interesting choice but at least she's a proven actress who has years of experience faking a Southern accent.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Joimiaroxeu

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well, apparently there was this five minute "special" that my dvr recorded, which was nothing but all the short quotes from some of the actors we saw during the airing of the mini-series. And also a short interview, some behind the scenes with Wolper, who produced this, and whose father produced the original. And the reason why Wolper junior decided to remake Roots? Because according to his son, the original "didn't speak to him."  

Me: WTF? I just, I have no words for that.  And I agree, Wolper junior made this mini series more...action adventurish, and just skimmed over a lot of things from the original, to showcase the action adventure part. I hope that makes sense. 

And for me, I thought the original had a better cast.  Yes, the remake had more unknowns, but it still had a few who are very well known.

Don't get me wrong. This is not a series I can watch over and over again. It's too painful. But when I do want to watch, I'll be watching the original.

Here's a point in favor of the original, that I think showed more realism; when Waller was selling Kizzy, Madge Sinclair's (of Trapper John, M.D. fame) Belle, begging him not to do it, you could see how age and being a slave had taken its toll, even if Waller was a more "kinder" owner: her rotting teeth. I don't know why that image of her flashed in my mind when Belle in this version was screaming Kizzy's name.

But yeah, other than the first two episodes, that explored more of Kunta's experience, the rest, so very weak.

Also, I don't think Missy had any feelings of a sexual nature toward Kizzy. I just think she thought of Kizzy as hers, as in her very own property and wasn't she so open minded that she treated her like a friend, taught her to read and write, and gave Kizzy her hand me downs. Would just come and drag/take Kizzy with her during her visits, ignoring/not caring that Kizzy was actually working or helping her mother or father. Kunte's eyes spoke volumes during those scenes.

And at the end, I suppose, we didn't see Queen, because she hadn't been born yet. She was Haley's great grandmother, right? Or Grandmother? I can't recall. I do remember the "sequel" to the original Roots when we saw her. And of course, there was the mini-series with Halle Berry played her. Wonder if Wolper will remake that so it will "speak to" his son.

Edited June 4, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[legaleagle53]

36 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And at the end, I suppose, we didn't see Queenie, because she hadn't been born yet. She was Haley's great grandmother, right? Or Grandmother? I can't recall. I do remember the "sequel" to the original Roots when we saw her. And of course, there was the mini-series with Halle Berry played her. Wonder if Wolper will remake that so it will "speak to" his son.

She was his paternal grandmother.  The first sequel to the original Roots picked up where that miniseries left off in the postwar Reconstruction era, continuing the narrative of his paternal line from 1882 through the Civil Rights era and up to the time that Alex Haley went to Africa and first discovered Kunta Kinte's homeland.

Edited June 4, 2016 by legaleagle53

[TigerLynx]

I thought Kunta Kinte, Kizzy, and George were Alex Haley's maternal line, and Queen was his paternal line.

In the original, there is a scene where Dr. Waller tells Kizzy and Missy that no woman is more true or loyal than Belle, she has been a faithful and good slave for him for years, but that doesn't matter when Belle is begging Dr. Waller not to sell Kizzy.

I liked that Kunta Kinte kept his accent in this one.  Just because he learned to speak English his accent wouldn't have disappeared.

Kunta Kinte and Belle didn't like the way Missy would drag Kizzy away, but I think they were also worried about what would happen as the girls got older, and Kizzy finally realized just how unequal her and Missy were going to be treated, and they were right to be worried.

[ruby24]

14 hours ago, DearEvette said:

I agree that the first two episodes were the strongest with the better storytelling and more nuanced writing.

And yes, the Django-effect is noticeable (and a little disappointing).  But I do think the killings were strategically done as @cakes1975 mentions in such a way that they weren't able to blow back on Kunte, Kizzy & George.  Or even if they did, they were at a point where they were like 'kill me if you have to.' 

But I also think it was a deliberate choice 1) because it ties back to Kunte's background as a warrior and him passing down that mindset to his kids.  From him to Kizzy from Kizzy to George (even if George did lose his way a bit). So it was a way to winding a thread through them that says their spirit is ubowed and 2) I think it is a bit of a meta clap back against the idea being pushed lately in books and textbooks trying to paint slaves as 'happy servants' (I know people like Snoop Dogg didn't want to watch another slave drama, but if these stories stop being told with at least a modicum of truth then the the 'happy servant' narrative is what will win out in the end) and 3) yeah, they have to appeal to a modern audience, it is still fictional tv.

Overall, even with some of the OTT moments, I thought this was a great remake and it was largely due to the actors themselves and some really smart writing.

But in the original, I didn't think any of them were painted as "happy servants." Subservient, yes, but certainly not happy about it. At least, not that I remember. Maybe Chicken George a little bit at first, but like in this one, he does realize the truth about Tom Lea, so it's not as if he stays that way. I keep coming back to my point that I know people don't like to watch slaves being subservient in these kinds of stories, but slavery went on for over 200 years for a reason. And if we're going to make films that want to tell the truth about our history and educate people, you have to show what really went on, why and how this tragedy was able to keep going for so long.

I just don't like the idea that viewers watch and are simply too frustrated to accept the reality of the subservience that occurred, as though it's something to be ashamed of, like "why don't they fight back more?" And I feel like that's kind of the message that this version was sending, a little bit. You want to see them fighting back, well, here it is! Forget what would have actually happened to them had they done this.

[Amethyst]

On 6/3/2016 at 7:01 PM, mightysparrow said:

Like so many, I found it impossible to believe that George would get away with killing Fredrick right in front of his parents.  There's no way George and his family would have made it off the property before he and his sons were brutally murdered and all of the women repeatedly raped.  The only way I could justify Fredrick's killing was that his parents knew what an asshole their son was and were glad to be rid of him.

Pretty much this.  That scene desperately needed some kind of coda explaining things, because at the very least, George and Tom would have been killed for what happened to Fredrick.  It wouldn't have mattered if they were free, it was self-defense, etc.  Fredrick was right about one thing; there were a lot of pissed off former slave-owners around looking to bash someone's head in.  Once Fredrick's murder was discovered, George and the family would be tracked down immediately.  

I figured that Murray just told the family to go and he would make something up.  As it was, they kept alluding that Tom was like a son to him, so Murray could have seen this as a way to protect Tom and his family.  Very unrealistic and Hollywood, I know, but that's how I saw it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

So, just out of curiosity, I went and checked to see how much the original cost. I'm glad I didn't buy the 30th anniversary DVD set, because after reading the reviews, it turns out that scenes were deleted from the original airing, something I will never understand-why Warner Bros. continues to do this kind of shit.  BUT, that review was from 2007, and Warner Bros. (those assholes) finally released the entire mini-series in blue ray, due out on Tuesday, which includes everything. I'm totally going to buy it.

[Rhetorica]

I binged watched this last night. I read the book and saw the original mini series. This one was just as heartbreaking. I have no problem with the rewrite. The original series was a national event when most households had three or four stations and no DVRs. It became a national dialogue.This one had to draw viewers with all the options available today. I hope it spurs people to research and discuss these issues.  On a shallow note, if Belle and Chicken George had babies, the world would have some beautiful people. 

[DearEvette]

18 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I just don't like the idea that viewers watch and are simply too frustrated to accept the reality of the subservience that occurred, as though it's something to be ashamed of, like "why don't they fight back more?" And I feel like that's kind of the message that this version was sending, a little bit. You want to see them fighting back, well, here it is! Forget what would have actually happened to them had they done this.

I was talking to my husband about this very thing and how it does strain belief to have them so blatantly killing folks.  But he pointed out that the slaves lived very intimately with their captors and that he would not be surprised is some slave holder died at the hands of his slave, not necessarily from a blade or a bullet or as openly as they did here, but in quieter ways.

So I think the idea of fighting back is a little more complex.  Yes, the slaves were subservient because the human condition is pre-disposed to fight for survivial and you will do what it takes to live.  But I think the reality lies somewhere in between.  Fighting back takes a lot of forms.  Not just the physical altercations we saw in this one, but also in the simple act of trying to escape.  Given how many slaves escaped or attempted to escape, we can figure that many were fighting in their own way.   Or in small everyday little rebellions  like tainting food or watching a master choke on a chicken bone and not running for help, or a judicious push down the stairs when no one is looking.  

I actually wish if they did feel the need to show the slaves fighting back that it was the more insidious stuff and not the punch/shoot/kill variety.  

[ruby24]

1 minute ago, DearEvette said:

I was talking to my husband about this very thing and how it does strain belief to have them so blatantly killing folks.  But he pointed out that the slaves lived very intimately with their captors and that he would not be surprised is some slave holder died at the hands of his slave, not necessarily from a blade or a bullet or as openly as they did here, but in quieter ways.

So I think the idea of fighting back is a little more complex.  Yes, the slaves were subservient because the human condition is pre-disposed to fight for survivial and you will do what it takes to live.  But I think the reality lies somewhere in between.  Fighting back takes a lot of forms.  Not just the physical altercations we saw in this one, but also in the simple act of trying to escape.  Given how many slaves escaped or attempted to escape, we can figure that many were fighting in their own way.   Or in small everyday little rebellions  like tainting food or watching a master choke on a chicken bone and not running for help, or a judicious push down the stairs when no one is looking.  

I actually wish if they did feel the need to show the slaves fighting back that it was the more insidious stuff and not the punch/shoot/kill variety.  

I totally agree!

[TigerLynx]

I would have loved to see Kizzy poison Tom Lea.

[StaceyNotStacie]

One thing that surprised me was that Kunta and Kizzy only had one child. Considering the era, I would have thought that get would have had multiple children, especially since Tom even mentioned that Kizzy was almost finished having babies. 

[junemeatcleaver]

I remember from the book Kunta was a virgin until he married Belle at 40-something and I can live with Kizzy not having multiple babies by her rapist.

[ClareWalks]

1 hour ago, Stacey1014 said:

One thing that surprised me was that Kunta and Kizzy only had one child. Considering the era, I would have thought that get would have had multiple children, especially since Tom even mentioned that Kizzy was almost finished having babies. 

Yeah, it seems like they made it more clear in the book that Kunta was 40 when he married Bell (who was older than him), so at least that explains that. I do wonder how Kizzy managed to avoid subsequent pregnancies, although I wonder if there was some African medicine Bell taught her to end pregnancies early.

[StaceyNotStacie]

I forgot about the time jumps in the first two episodes, and the actor playing Kunta looked so young that it didn't occur to me that he was in his 40s. 

I didn't think about African medicine  I almost wondered if Patricia's fertility issues were really Tom's issues.

36 minutes ago, ClareWalks said:

Yeah, it seems like they made it more clear in the book that Kunta was 40 when he married Bell (who was older than him), so at least that explains that. I do wonder how Kizzy managed to avoid subsequent pregnancies, although I wonder if there was some African medicine Bell taught her to end pregnancies early.