Roots (2016)

7.9/ 10

95 min

Follow this serie

Comments

CC11 • 1 June 2016, 12:31

4.5

After all, it is the History Channel, I suppose. A station that, despite its name, usually takes tricks with history rather than trying to be accurate. In itself it may seem nice to remake classics, but in the case of Roots it would have been better to spend the funds to polish up the original film one more time or at least choose a different title because this is the version from 1977 unworthy. Some of the big names in the cast and the fact that even "Sookie" (Anna Paquin) is in can not change that. If you have yet to get started, do yourself a favor and just watch the original series again.

1Translated from Dutch.

gumstarr • 8 June 2016, 15:01

The sun is shining, but the Netherlands was not at its best recently. I thought, at least. Typhoon, and in anonymity many black boys with him, was stopped by the police because he was not driving a car that was tied together from gaffer tape. Still seemingly suspicious. A little more pigment and a decent car? Drug dealer. Sylvana was killed to the core online because she had the gore to say things that don't quite fit 'our' oh-so-tolerant self-image. Don't get me wrong ... Not everyone needs huge Sylvana Simons posters above the bed, but even if you disagree with someone, there is still such a thing as decency. And start a party together with two Turkish and one Moroccan Dutchman? Life-threatening. The fact that the VVD is even whiter than the packet of custard that has been catching mold in my fridge for weeks is not a problem, but if 'they' suddenly start to organize themselves, then the turnips are done. And then we are not even talking about the reactions that arose around the flow of refugees. If the stories are to be believed, that entire Syrian economy was run on serial rapists and mass murderers. It is at times to make you despondent. Often, as a result of all this ignorance and the lack of sensitivity, the gaps in our education system are pointed out. The pages of Dutch history that do not smell like flowers often seem to receive just a little less attention than the 'success stories'. In '98 I had history in my graduation package, but I actually only really learned about the dark sides of the Dutch drive for expansion from the mother of an Indonesian girlfriend. I hope that our schools are now doing better for each other, but it is always good to broaden your horizons in other ways as well. Read a newspaper, use the internet for something other than peeking at dirty movies and watch a documentary from time to time. Also in the field of films, and to a lesser extent series, people now and then venture to the pain of our global past. 12 Years A Slave, The Butler, Selma, Malcolm X, Amistad, all of them films that made you shudder afterwards on your bike home. Rightly so. For years, the subject was not 'sexy' enough. A difficult message meant few viewers and few viewers meant that Procter & Gamble spent their marketing budget around a repeat of The Big Bang Theory at the competitor. A great philosopher once put it very aptly… It's all about the Benjamins, baby. Yet something seems to be changing. The Canadian CBC filmed Lawrence Hill's book The Book Of Negroes last year, this year we have two more important series with Underground and the History Channel's Roots. Roots tells the life story of Kunta Kinte, who is captured in the Gambia at a young age and shipped to America as a slave and is based on Alex Haley's book of the same title. ABC cast the gripping story of Kinte and his descendants into series form in 1977 and a year later, after being nominated 37 times, it ran off with 9 Emmys. So the question in advance was whether the History Channel had not put on too big shoes with this remake, but after seeing all the episodes I say not. Does it live up to its predecessor from '77 in all respects? Maybe not. Is it as grand and compelling as Amistad and 12 Years A Slave? No. The 2016 edition of Roots won't be as eagerly watched worldwide as the latest season of Game Of Thrones, but that doesn't make this a minor series. After the release of his book, Haley has had the wind from various quarters, because his story here and there would take a toll on the truth. In addition, History Channel has of course adapted everything so that it is suitable for the living room, so that fact and fiction are often mixed up. However, that does not alter the fact that Roots affects things that actually happened. Things that still leave their mark in today's society. Reducing people to objects. Objects that could be freely traded and claimed. Objects that, if they turned out to be defective, were simply flickered overboard during the crossing to America. Torn families, torn dreams and flesh torn on the backs of the disobedient. The whip may no longer be used, but it hasn't been that long ago in Alabama they hung someone's ankles behind the pickup truck without blushing. Not so long ago that dark America was not welcome in the diner. They picked up their food from the hatch in the adjacent alley. In fact, it took until the Reagan administration of the 1980s for dark White House employees to be paid the same as their white colleagues. The 80's. That was only thirty years ago. Thirty years. No, we are far from there and any form of media - be it the newspaper, a constructive online discussion or a series like Roots - that contributes to that awareness is most welcome in my opinion. (Apologies for the huge amount of text)

0Translated from Dutch.

CC11 • 8 June 2016, 16:23

Racism is just as wrong as slavery and vice versa. Let it be clear, however, that neither was or is exclusively reserved for our fellow human beings with a slightly darker skin color. Because as everyone will hopefully know, slavery was known on this globe much earlier than the 18th century where the story of Kunta Kinte begins. For example, about 1,800 years earlier, we had a certain Spartacus who stood up against slavery at a time when most slaves were just white people. Just as I don't think anyone should remain blind to racism, it is a term that, as far as I am concerned, is used a little too easily by certain groups and is often the only empty argument they use. When I read an article in Belgian newspapers about "young people" who stand out, I usually already know which young people it is based on where it happened. It doesn't matter to me that a young person drives a nice car, no matter what color he may be. But the fact is that also in the Antwerp area where I live, the police at a certain point started to pay extra attention to a certain group of young people who very much like to use (sports) cars for which ordinary citizens have to work for years while they themselves are officially not had some professional activity. Is someone racist if he makes a comment about it? I personally don't think so. You can have good intentions and want to help everyone when it comes to refugees, but you can also say that someone who has fled a war zone and is on safe soil but still wants to go further into Europe is no longer a war refugee, but an economic refugee. If people who are being helped still find that they still have to make demands and / or are outraged that they do not immediately get a house / car / job or benefit under their ass without wanting to make a contribution themselves in whatever form, I consider that as people who do not belong in our society. Coincidentally, I read in a newspaper today that during the first three months of this year, 69,000 crimes were registered in Germany committed by so-called refugees. It may sound strange to some, if not to me, but a negligible percentage of it was committed by people who can actually be considered war refugees on the basis of their nationality alone. That is a fact that I find quite normal because someone who is really in trouble is, with the occasional exception, usually grateful for the help he / she is allowed to receive. At least I would be myself. But we deviate. So Roots 2016, where History Channel once again lets itself go in its usual way and delivers a product that is below par for me. Because no matter how lyrical my friend Gumstarr may be, I think the new Roots should not be allowed to polish the shoes of the 1977 series. I honestly say that I have not seen all the episodes, on the contrary, I have pulled the plug during the 2nd episode. Why ? Well if you still want to mirror yourself to the original and use the same title, then you should be very good too. And that's not the new Roots. You can ask yourself why native pirates in The Gambia ride a horse somewhere in the late 18th century or why the History Channel has to film a story that takes place in Virginia in Louisiana if necessary, which is a completely different area, or more of those things but what struck me most was how soulless this new version was. Where the epic from 1977 sucked and held you into the story from the first minute, I felt like "yes, it will" when I saw this more. Not to say that after 10 minutes I was more interested in what was happening around me than in what was happening on the screen. So no, no Roots 2016 for me, I prefer the original. PS. Also my apologies for the long text :-)

1Translated from Dutch.

Series

About us

Pages

More information

Apps

App Store Google Play

Roots (2016)

More videos

Roots (2016)

Comments